Airliners.net

par13del wrote:

Admit to not reading every line in the contract, but does the contract state the date the EU would approve the vaccine, was AZ trying to force the EU hand in approval as a lot of other companies did for various products during the height of the lockdown?
So far no one seems to think it is bad optics to have vaccines supplies in storage awaiting approval while other countries who have already approved cannot receive those supplies, and no I am not talking about the UK. WHO and PAHO are facilitating deliveries to other third countries.

It seems to state that a quantitative of jabs shall be delivered to a certain date. One date is "by misstake" readable anf it is June 30. Another previous date that is there is not possible to read.

But I suppose by divert supplies outside EU the dates of the contract will be complicated to maintain or will require that everything go very smooth.

I can also assume that EU gets information that supplies being diverted to UK where Brexiteers laugh over EU failure while EU being fooled.

tommy1808 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Not to mention it increases chances of creating resistant covid mutants!

Does it though? Its not antibiotics, where surviving bacteria is more resistant than those that got killed off. Either the immune systems responds effectively or not after the first shot, the 2nd shot just increases the chance of it doing so.
Since any better response by the immune system reduces the amount of copies the virus will make in a given person, and mutations being purely probabilistic, and since there isn't and selection pressure like with antibiotics, i would think getting the first shot is still better than no shot, without a downside. But I guess we need to ask Doc..

DocLightning wrote:

magic summoning spell

Best regards
Thomas

*POOF!* Woah! How did I wind up here?

We are still learning about coronaviruses and, frankly, SARS-CoV-2 has been an excellent teacher, albeit by the "hard knocks" method. Before the outbreak, the best information that we had was that coronaviruses modulate the immune response to make it shorter-lasting. For this reason, patients who survived SARS-1 lost all detectable antibody response after 1-3 years.(1) We also saw a profound decrease in antibody response after infection with one of the endemic "common cold" coronaviruses.(2,3) Coronaviruses have enormous genomes and a large amount of that genome seems to be dedicated to various genes that manipulate the host response.

But more recently,(4) we have seen that one of the endemic HCoVs, a common cold coronavirus called 229E (the first human coronavirus ever discovered), seems to change its spike protein over time, rendering prior neutralizing sera ineffective.

Now, every successful virus needs to have a strategy for remaining in a population. For measles, mumps, polio, or smallpox, that strategy was to be absurdly contagious. For influenza, antigenic shift from year to year seems to be the model. Other viruses like hepatitis B, hepatitis C, the herpesviruses, and HIV cause long-term chronic infection. For coronaviruses, if you'd asked me before last month, I'd have told you that their strategy was to manipulate the immune system into producing a short-term response. But now, while I still think that is part of their strategy, it also appears that antigenic drift is a different part of that strategy.

One thing is for certain: the vaccines are the only way to stop this. Vaccines can generate a high-level, long-lasting antibody response, unlike natural infection. The virus cannot mutate and thus undergo antigenic shift if it is not infecting people. It may also be that this virus may behave a bit like influenza and need a booster every year to account for antigenic drift, a possibility that I had previously dismissed, but must now entertain based on this new information.

Time will tell.

(1)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/
(2)https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1?fbclid=IwAR1_yXe66j8D_PEUumpuFCXsARj6m0K7irZ54Orfmp1Gw3_BF3rtMXdRTbc
(3)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271881/
(4)https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.17.423313v1.full.pdf

DocLightning wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Not to mention it increases chances of creating resistant covid mutants!

Does it though? Its not antibiotics, where surviving bacteria is more resistant than those that got killed off. Either the immune systems responds effectively or not after the first shot, the 2nd shot just increases the chance of it doing so.
Since any better response by the immune system reduces the amount of copies the virus will make in a given person, and mutations being purely probabilistic, and since there isn't and selection pressure like with antibiotics, i would think getting the first shot is still better than no shot, without a downside. But I guess we need to ask Doc..

DocLightning wrote:

magic summoning spell

Best regards
Thomas

*POOF!* Woah! How did I wind up here?

Awesome, thanks for injecting an update!

Best regards
Thomas

Indeed, thanks for the interesting reading.
From your background, do you think it is a good idea to give first shorts only as opposed to also the second repeat dose within the 3 week timeframe as prescribed by the manufacturer of the vaccines?
Because overhere there's a lot of discussion about having to hold large amounts of vaccines in fridges for those follow up doses, while those could be used on other people.
Even the experts don't seem to agree with eachother on this topic, which gives the impression nobody knows for sure, and those who do, are using people as guinea pigs almost.
The argument often used against delaying the second jap is that it risks ending up with a population which has only mediocre protection and a virus that gets even more difficult to protect against as a consequence?
Which is why most countries seem to stick to the instructions from the pharmaceutical companies, while a few others have a different approach aimed at giving as much people as possible a first jap, without a follow up jap at all even. It shows for impressive statistics at first for sure, but it could play out very dangerously in the end!

tommy1808 wrote:

Awesome, thanks for injecting an update!
Best regards
Thomas

was that pun intended, or just a coincidence?

sabenapilot wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

EU’s fault for not ordering enough.

The EU ordered more than enough Arion640; it's A-Z which doesn't want to deliver them, claiming sudden production issues at one plant...

In a nutshell:
The EU ordered 100m initial doses from A-Z, coming from 4 plants (2 of which in the UK), none of which had any previous obligations according to A-Z (it's litterally in the contract)
The moment the EU calls upon A-Z to start to deliver these doses, A-Z suddenly says it can't deliver them, because there's a production issue in 1 plant in Belgium.
"Oh, dear", said the EU, "then tell us what the new delivery schedule will be, based on production from the 3 remaining plants'.
"No", said A-Z, "it's all just going to come from the other single EU plant".
And after a week of dodging questions from and meetings with the EU, it emerges the 2 British plants suddenly seem to have an obligation to produce for Britain first, despite having explicitly stated such was not the case in the contract with the EU....

As has been said: not only has A-Z signed up to something it knew was not correct (since the UK deal was signed some 3 weeks ahead of the deals it signed with the rest of Europe); but also -and this is something the British press vehemently refuses to discuss so far because it knows it is not going to make the UK look good at all- has the UK government clearly engaged in vaccine nationalism in the sole contract for doses it could source domestically, while at the same time having to rely and strongly push for international solidarity for the multitude of doses it had to source from the EU at the same time....

Luckily the new measures taken by the EU will quickly correct the unfair consequences, because at least in my country we're now expecting the contracted doses as from early next week which will bring us ahead of our target vaccination sheme, and as 'olle' reported, the Swedish government is also now saying the problem is now solved.

It all comes down to the EU not ordering enough, fast enough and nothing else. Also not diversifying their suppliers (the UK will shortly have 5).

The UK has not engaged in vaccine nationalism as we will have more foreign vaccines than British ones. It’s just fallen that the domestic manufacturer can supply the most in the near term.

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible and get this all sorted. More importantly, we need to get it out to the developing countries.

Arion640 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

EU’s fault for not ordering enough.

The EU ordered more than enough Arion640; it's A-Z which doesn't want to deliver them, claiming sudden production issues at one plant...

In a nutshell:
The EU ordered 100m initial doses from A-Z, coming from 4 plants (2 of which in the UK), none of which had any previous obligations according to A-Z (it's litterally in the contract)
The moment the EU calls upon A-Z to start to deliver these doses, A-Z suddenly says it can't deliver them, because there's a production issue in 1 plant in Belgium.
"Oh, dear", said the EU, "then tell us what the new delivery schedule will be, based on production from the 3 remaining plants'.
"No", said A-Z, "it's all just going to come from the other single EU plant".
And after a week of dodging questions from and meetings with the EU, it emerges the 2 British plants suddenly seem to have an obligation to produce for Britain first, despite having explicitly stated such was not the case in the contract with the EU....

As has been said: not only has A-Z signed up to something it knew was not correct (since the UK deal was signed some 3 weeks ahead of the deals it signed with the rest of Europe); but also -and this is something the British press vehemently refuses to discuss so far because it knows it is not going to make the UK look good at all- has the UK government clearly engaged in vaccine nationalism in the sole contract for doses it could source domestically, while at the same time having to rely and strongly push for international solidarity for the multitude of doses it had to source from the EU at the same time....

Luckily the new measures taken by the EU will quickly correct the unfair consequences, because at least in my country we're now expecting the contracted doses as from early next week which will bring us ahead of our target vaccination sheme, and as 'olle' reported, the Swedish government is also now saying the problem is now solved.

It all comes down to the EU not ordering enough, fast enough and nothing else. Also not diversifying their suppliers (the UK will shortly have 5).

The UK has not engaged in vaccine nationalism as we will have more foreign vaccines than British ones. It’s just fallen that the domestic manufacturer can supply the most in the near term.

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible and get this all sorted. More importantly, we need to get it out to the developing countries.

How many doses Arion640 should EU with 450 million people order?

--------------------------------

Choosing several suppliers increases the chances of having faster access to one or several successful vaccines. In addition, when negotiating together, the purchasing power is greater and conditions such as price and delivery times can be more advantageous.

So far, the EU's portfolio of vaccines totals 2.3 billion doses – more than enough to protect the entire EU population.



https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... ANDA_21_48

Arion640 wrote:

The UK has not engaged in vaccine nationalism as we will have more foreign vaccines than British ones.

Vaccine nationalism means not exporting any vaccine. The UK doesn't export any vaccine, even those sold to other countries under no competing obligation condition.

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible

They better if they don't want to go to prison.

olle wrote:

So far, the EU's portfolio of vaccines totals 2.3 billion doses – more than enough to protect the entire EU population.

Plus a couple of hundred million ordered by member states directly, 2.7 Billion is the total I believe, enough to

More importantly, we need to get it out to the developing countries.

Supply vaccines for a billion people on top.

Best regards
Thomas

Arion640 wrote:

It all comes down to the EU not ordering enough, fast enough and nothing else. Also not diversifying their suppliers (the UK will shortly have 5).

Well, you are of course entitled to believe whatever you want, but you're wrong: 2,3 BN doses have been ordered so far!
The EU commission has ordered more vaccines per capita than the UK government has and has contracts with a whole range of manufacturers (6).
https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-tra ... ropeans_en

Arion640 wrote:

The UK has not engaged in vaccine nationalism as we will have more foreign vaccines than British ones. It’s just fallen that the domestic manufacturer can supply the most in the near term.

vaccine nationalism doesnt mean you don't use foreign vaccines (too), it means you don't let vaccines leave the country!
Please explain us how come the 'domestic manufacturer' as you call A-Z is not willing/allowed to export from these domestic sites, despite having a contract with the EU stating they should, all while EU manufacturers are clearly having nothing preventing them to export to the UK too (until this Saturday that was, at least)?
Something is asymmetric in here, don't you agree?

Arion640 wrote:

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible and get this all sorted. More importantly, we need to get it out to the developing countries.

Well as by surprise, it seems A-Z is suddenly in a position to share the burden of a production shortfall fairly, whereas before this weekend, it wasn't...
For the rest I agree, but I'd like to add that it would be interesting to dig a bit deeper into the matter whether the UK indeed engaged in some hidden vaccination nationalism as suspected.
It's really a UNIQUE opportunity for Brexiteers to prove that they are not the narrowminded flagwaving nationalists they are depicted as being abroad, by simply throwing the contract with A-Z out in the open, just as the EU did with its contract (with A-Zs approval BTW): there was no vaccine nationalism in the EU contract and the EU has been sending abroad more vaccines than it has administered itself so far, so it would be hugely damaging for the image and standing of the UK if it were to be found out that while greatly benefiting from these shipments from the EU, it was also trying to keep whatever it could make for itself at the same time. Have your cake and eat it at the same time, remember?
So, where's the contract?

olle wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

The EU ordered more than enough Arion640; it's A-Z which doesn't want to deliver them, claiming sudden production issues at one plant...

In a nutshell:
The EU ordered 100m initial doses from A-Z, coming from 4 plants (2 of which in the UK), none of which had any previous obligations according to A-Z (it's litterally in the contract)
The moment the EU calls upon A-Z to start to deliver these doses, A-Z suddenly says it can't deliver them, because there's a production issue in 1 plant in Belgium.
"Oh, dear", said the EU, "then tell us what the new delivery schedule will be, based on production from the 3 remaining plants'.
"No", said A-Z, "it's all just going to come from the other single EU plant".
And after a week of dodging questions from and meetings with the EU, it emerges the 2 British plants suddenly seem to have an obligation to produce for Britain first, despite having explicitly stated such was not the case in the contract with the EU....

As has been said: not only has A-Z signed up to something it knew was not correct (since the UK deal was signed some 3 weeks ahead of the deals it signed with the rest of Europe); but also -and this is something the British press vehemently refuses to discuss so far because it knows it is not going to make the UK look good at all- has the UK government clearly engaged in vaccine nationalism in the sole contract for doses it could source domestically, while at the same time having to rely and strongly push for international solidarity for the multitude of doses it had to source from the EU at the same time....

Luckily the new measures taken by the EU will quickly correct the unfair consequences, because at least in my country we're now expecting the contracted doses as from early next week which will bring us ahead of our target vaccination sheme, and as 'olle' reported, the Swedish government is also now saying the problem is now solved.

It all comes down to the EU not ordering enough, fast enough and nothing else. Also not diversifying their suppliers (the UK will shortly have 5).

The UK has not engaged in vaccine nationalism as we will have more foreign vaccines than British ones. It’s just fallen that the domestic manufacturer can supply the most in the near term.

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible and get this all sorted. More importantly, we need to get it out to the developing countries.

How many doses Arion640 should EU with 450 million people order?

--------------------------------

Choosing several suppliers increases the chances of having faster access to one or several successful vaccines. In addition, when negotiating together, the purchasing power is greater and conditions such as price and delivery times can be more advantageous.

So far, the EU's portfolio of vaccines totals 2.3 billion doses – more than enough to protect the entire EU population.



https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... ANDA_21_48

It’s never good to put all your eggs in one basket - any good business person knows this. This is the EU’s biggest mistake.

sabenapilot wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

It all comes down to the EU not ordering enough, fast enough and nothing else. Also not diversifying their suppliers (the UK will shortly have 5).

Well, you are entitled to believe whatever you want, but you're wrong: 2,3 BN doses have been ordered so far!
The EU commission has ordered more vaccines per capita than the UK government has and has contracts with a whole range of manufacturers (6).
https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-tra ... ropeans_en

Arion640 wrote:

The UK has not engaged in vaccine nationalism as we will have more foreign vaccines than British ones. It’s just fallen that the domestic manufacturer can supply the most in the near term.

vaccine nationalism doesnt mean you don't use foreign vaccines (too), it means you don't let vaccines leave the country!
Please explain us how come the 'domestic manufacturer' as you call A-Z is not willing/allowed to export from these domestic sites, despite having a contract with the EU stating they should, all while EU manufacturers are clearly having nothing preventing them to export to the UK too (until this Saturday that was, at least)?
Something is asymmetric in here, don't you agree?

Arion640 wrote:

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible and get this all sorted. More importantly, we need to get it out to the developing countries.

Well as by surprise, it seems A-Z is suddenly in a position to share the burden of a production shortfall fairly, whereas before this weekend, it wasn't...
For the rest I agree, but I'd like to add that it would be interesting to dig a bit deeper into the matter whether the UK indeed engaged in some hidden vaccination nationalism as suspected.
It's really a UNIQUE opportunity for Brexiteers to prove that they are not the narrowminded flagwaving nationalists they are depicted as being abroad, by simply throwing the contract with A-Z out in the open, just as the EU did with its contract (with A-Zs approval BTW): there was no vaccine nationalism in the EU contract and the EU has been sending abroad more vaccines than it has administered itself so far, so it would be hugely damaging for the image and standing of the UK if it were to be found out that while greatly benefiting from these shipments from the EU, it was also trying to keep whatever it could make for itself at the same time. Have your cake and eat it at the same time, remember?
So, where's the contract?

EU order 2.3 billion vaccines, ridiculous hoarding which prevents the smaller countries having access.

tommy1808 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The UK has not engaged in vaccine nationalism as we will have more foreign vaccines than British ones.

Vaccine nationalism means not exporting any vaccine. The UK doesn't export any vaccine, even those sold to other countries under no competing obligation condition.

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible

They better if they don't want to go to prison.

olle wrote:

So far, the EU's portfolio of vaccines totals 2.3 billion doses – more than enough to protect the entire EU population.

Plus a couple of hundred million ordered by member states directly, 2.7 Billion is the total I believe, enough to

More importantly, we need to get it out to the developing countries.

Supply vaccines for a billion people on top.

Best regards
Thomas

The UK isn’t exporting any vaccine as there’s home orders to fill. These were secured first with AZ, so should be supplied first before any EU vaccine who ordered later, go out.

Interesting read:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/eu ... 145a898abd

Lol especially regarding the scaleback of Pfizer (successful) to match the order for Sanofi (French). I assume that’s what the EU calls “political compromises”?

tommy1808 wrote:

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible

They better if they don't want to go to prison.

I think the lot at the EC should go to prison.

Arion640 wrote:

EU order 2.3 billion vaccines, ridiculous hoarding which prevents the smaller countries having access.

ROTFL, I got to give it to you, you can switch from one stick to beat the EU with to another one in just a second.
First they didn't order enough, and then when you're shown the numbers, they've ordered too much.

So I heard that suddenly AZ fond 9 millions doses? Behind à sofa [/url]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ASTRAZENECA-PLC-4000930/news/AstraZeneca-EU-s-Von-Der-Leyen-says-Astrazeneca-will-deliver-9-mln-more-vaccine-doses-32321138/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiFyuC47MbuAhWi3eAKHWdsCA8QxfQBMAF6BAgJEAE&usg=AOvVaw1YglioV1C51DSswQlactee[/url]

Arion640 wrote:

The UK isn’t exporting any vaccine as there’s home orders to fill. These were secured first with AZ, so should be supplied first before any EU vaccine who ordered later, go out.

That's the exact definition of vaccine nationalism!
Let's hope for the rest of the world the EU doesn't revert to the same 'us first' attitute on display here by the UK, or all Britts are in deep trouble given the nation's reliance on imported vaccines from the EU, you do realise that, don't you?
Somehow I can't stop to be amazed by the fact Brexiteers genuinely don't see any problem with them being highly protective all the time, while at the same time expect from all others to just share fairly with them, be it vaccines, free market access, or any other thing really.
Exceptionalism really has gone to the head...

Arion640 wrote:

The UK isn’t exporting any vaccine as there’s home orders to fill. These were secured first with AZ, so should be supplied first before any EU vaccine who ordered later, go out.

So you would agree if the EU did the same with the German-developed Pfizer vaccine. Or the Janssens vaccine?

I agree that the EU did not order enough doses. For two reasons.

First the EU did only other enough if all vaccines turn out to be good. If more than one failes, like sanofi/GSK, the EU would be short. In fact, the EU is critically dependant on the az vaccine.

Second, while over ordering does resemble hoarding at first, it also establishes production capacity, which could be used for developing countries. And any excess doses could be donated.

Arion640 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The UK has not engaged in vaccine nationalism as we will have more foreign vaccines than British ones.

Vaccine nationalism means not exporting any vaccine. The UK doesn't export any vaccine, even those sold to other countries under no competing obligation condition.

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible

They better if they don't want to go to prison.

olle wrote:

So far, the EU's portfolio of vaccines totals 2.3 billion doses – more than enough to protect the entire EU population.

Plus a couple of hundred million ordered by member states directly, 2.7 Billion is the total I believe, enough to

More importantly, we need to get it out to the developing countries.

Supply vaccines for a billion people on top.

Best regards
Thomas

The UK isn’t exporting any vaccine as there’s home orders to fill. These were secured first with AZ, so should be supplied first before any EU vaccine who ordered later, go out.

Which is vaccina Nationalism you claim to care about.

DTVG wrote:

I think the lot at the EC should go to prison.

Different from the AZ management they didn't commit fraud. And I do hope that under Belgium law, fraud leading to the death of people can be charged as murder as it can under German law.

Dupli wrote:

First the EU did only other enough if all vaccines turn out to be good. If more than one failes, like sanofi/GSK, the EU would be short. In fact, the EU is critically dependant on the az vaccine..

Nope, the EU has ordered enough Biontech/moderna to vaccinate anyone over the age of 16. AZ is only ~17% of the EU orders. J&J makes up twice that, Biontech ~25%. Sanofi is just about 13%.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

I do hope that under Belgium law, fraud leading to the death of people can be charged as murder as it can under German law.

I am happy to tell you it can be labeled as manslaughter and prosecutors are going to start looking into the matter once the inquiry on the production shortfalls in the A-Z plant here are concluded, should there be any willfull misconduct found rather than just a normal production glitch during the scaling up of the output.
Which could explain why A-Z seems to have suddenly 'found' 9 million additional doses for almost immediate delivery to the EU maybe?

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, the EU has ordered enough Biontech/moderna to vaccinate anyone over the age of 16. AZ is only ~17% of the EU orders. J&J makes up twice that, Biontech ~25%. Sanofi is just about 13%.

Correct: the numbers are in the links posted several times already.
The A-Z contract is -luckily- one of the smaller ones, no idea why, but sure its a good thing, given both the production difficulties they face as well as the reluctance to live up to their commitments.
Definitely a lesson for the EU to be very careful with working with British companies in future: they seem to be under quite conflicting obligations towards their national government....
Should we put the UK on the same 'suspected list' as for instance the PRC when dealing with their companies in future?

Dupli wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The UK isn’t exporting any vaccine as there’s home orders to fill. These were secured first with AZ, so should be supplied first before any EU vaccine who ordered later, go out.

So you would agree if the EU did the same with the German-developed Pfizer vaccine. Or the Janssens vaccine?

I agree that the EU did not order enough doses. For two reasons.

First the EU did only other enough if all vaccines turn out to be good. If more than one failes, like sanofi/GSK, the EU would be short. In fact, the EU is critically dependant on the az vaccine.

Second, while over ordering does resemble hoarding at first, it also establishes production capacity, which could be used for developing countries. And any excess doses could be donated.

Am I right in thinking as well the EU had assumed there would have been several different vaccines approved for use by regulators by now, hence why it’s cited as another reason why vaccination rates within the EU are behind initial expectations?

Boeing74741R wrote:

Dupli wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The UK isn’t exporting any vaccine as there’s home orders to fill. These were secured first with AZ, so should be supplied first before any EU vaccine who ordered later, go out.

So you would agree if the EU did the same with the German-developed Pfizer vaccine. Or the Janssens vaccine?

I agree that the EU did not order enough doses. For two reasons.

First the EU did only other enough if all vaccines turn out to be good. If more than one failes, like sanofi/GSK, the EU would be short. In fact, the EU is critically dependant on the az vaccine.

Second, while over ordering does resemble hoarding at first, it also establishes production capacity, which could be used for developing countries. And any excess doses could be donated.

Am I right in thinking as well the EU had assumed there would have been several different vaccines approved for use by regulators by now, hence why it’s cited as another reason why vaccination rates within the EU are behind initial expectations?

I think only Curavec was expected to be ready just around now, with the rest over the summer.

Best regards
Thomas

sabenapilot wrote:

A-Z seems to have suddenly 'found' 9 million additional doses for almost immediate delivery to the EU maybe?

My gut feeling tells me they will find 80 million doses minus whatever percentage the production shortfall across all facilities was until the end of Q1.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

A-Z seems to have suddenly 'found' 9 million additional doses for almost immediate delivery to the EU maybe?

My gut feeling tells me they will find 80 million doses minus whatever percentage the production shortfall across all facilities was until the end of Q1.

Best regards
Thomas

Well, it has to be done in slices for it to be somewhat credible still, doesn't it?
Besides, they may have to talk to the UK government too, given the likely 'Britain first' clause in their contract with the UK.
I doubt the UK government is going to dare to enforce that now however, given the likely fall out from such a decision might very well be a reciprocal outright export ban from the EU towards the UK, which would cripple their domestic vaccination program completely....
Anyway, they don't have much choice now, do they? The EC will force them via the export authorisation scheme.

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, the EU has ordered enough Biontech/moderna to vaccinate anyone over the age of 16. AZ is only ~17% of the EU orders. J&J makes up twice that, Biontech ~25%. Sanofi is just about 13%.

Yes, you are right, is seems the numbers in my head were out of date. Thanks for pointing this out.

sabenapilot wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

A-Z seems to have suddenly 'found' 9 million additional doses for almost immediate delivery to the EU maybe?

My gut feeling tells me they will find 80 million doses minus whatever percentage the production shortfall across all facilities was until the end of Q1.

Best regards
Thomas

Well, it has to be done in slices for it to be somewhat credible still, doesn't it?

Besides, they may have to talk to the UK government too, given the likely 'Britain first' clause in their contract with the UK.

The number is suspiciously close to what the UK currently would need to administer a 2nd shot. Might they go from conservative to riding the edge?

Dupli wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, the EU has ordered enough Biontech/moderna to vaccinate anyone over the age of 16. AZ is only ~17% of the EU orders. J&J makes up twice that, Biontech ~25%. Sanofi is just about 13%.

Yes, you are right, is seems the numbers in my head were out of date. Thanks for pointing this out.

You are welcome.

Best regards
Thomas

Well the EU is accepting that it erred in this process and is showing this by accepting that it will receive some 40M doses instead of the desired 80M.

AstraZeneca Plc will deliver 9 million additional vaccine doses to the European Union in the first quarter of this year.

The company will start deliveries one week earlier than scheduled and expand its manufacturing capacity in Europe, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Twitter Sunday. The extra doses will bring the total to 40 million for the first quarter, she said.

Read More: Faced With a Vaccine Emergency, the EU Made an Enemy of Everyone
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... f-everyone

AstraZeneca triggered a crisis Jan. 22 when it said that problems at a plant in Belgium meant deliveries to the EU this quarter would be less than half of what was initially planned. As a result, the bloc, which came under fire due to the slow rollout of national vaccination programs, said it would begin restricting the export of vaccines if drugmakers fail to meet delivery targets.

While Astra’s additional doses mark an improvement, they still fall far short of the 80 million doses the EU was expecting.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... cine-doses

It seems the correction being made is to improve and enable expanded production within the EU.

Ursula von der Leyen
@vonderleyen
·
Step forward on vaccines.

@AstraZeneca will deliver 9 million additional doses in the first quarter (40 million in total) compared to last week’s offer & will start deliveries one week earlier than scheduled.

The company will also expand its manufacturing capacity in Europe.

https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/ ... wsrc%5Etfw

It has been an exceptionally slow roll out in the EU for vaccines and vaccinations.

Tugg

I'm going to have my say on this...

This all stems back to last year when the UK opted out of the EU vaccine procurement programme, deciding to go it alone and finance various vaccine options.

The UK was quick off the mark in securing over 360million doses of then potential vaccines from various pharma companies.

The UK Oxford/AZ contract stipulates that the UK Govt will help build 2 new vaccine production lines in the UK providing AZ fulfills it's UK Govt contractual obligation of 100million doses produced in the UK go to the UK.

The UK invested in potential vaccines, got to the front of the order books first and reaping the rewards with now over 8million vaccinated with the first dose, with over 600,000 done today.

sabenapilot wrote:

From your background, do you think it is a good idea to give first shorts only as opposed to also the second repeat dose within the 3 week timeframe as prescribed by the manufacturer of the vaccines?

It isn't what I would have recommended, but I wasn't consulted.

So some background, the two shots is what we call a "prime-boost" regimen.(1) Sometimes, we use a prime and two boosts, which is why the Hepatitis B vaccine has doses at 0, 1-2, and 6mo. For the first dose, we see production of good neutralizing antibodies, but then the levels go down. The levels will always go down because the immune system cannot practically maintain a high level of antibody production to every virus and bacterium that it has ever seen or you would have lymphoma! After a period of time (21 days minimum), if a second dose is given, we now see a much higher immune response (1-3 orders of magnitude higher) as those memory cells are reactivated. Also, in the process of boosting, the immune system has another opportunity to "toy around" with the foreign proteins and develop truly optimal antibodies against them. This information is all found in any high-school level or higher immunology textbook. My text is Immunobiology by Kenneth Murphy (900+ pages and US$125, so you might just want to take my word for it).

Now, given the urgency of the pandemic, the vaccine manufacturers chose brief intervals between prime and boost. Moderna chose 28 days and Pfizer/BNT chose 21 days. So that's how the studies were done. We also know from the two studies that were published (forgive me if I'm too lazy to post links, but they're publicly available) that we see efficacy in the 50-80% range after one single dose. We know from basic immunology but also from other vaccines (Hepatitis A, HPV, Hepatitis B, Measles/Mumps/Rubella/Varicella, Polio, etc.) that the interval between prime and boost can be a year or more. However, had these manufacturers chosen such an interval, we would still be waiting on preliminary results now.

So while I don't think it would be catastrophic and make the vaccines stop working if there were a 12 week or more interval between the prime and boost doses, that's quite a while for the populace to be only half-protected. Moreover, the UK has threatened doctors and practices with loss of licensure for breaking that timeline. I think that in a pandemic situation like this, taking that kind of punitive approach is counterproductive and might make doctors and practices hesitant to give out any doses at all for fear of making a mistake and suffering these dire consequences.

I do think that the best strategy is to just get doses in arms, and if the second dose gets delayed a bit, it's OK, but I think that prescribing a fixed 12 week interval is not a good idea. I would recommend attempting to get everyone their second dose within the studied and recommended timeframe, but if someone falls out and doesn't get their second dose for a few months, I think that second dose will work just fine, anyway.

(1)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/

DocLightning wrote:

that we see efficacy in the 50-80% range after one single dose.

are there numbers regarding avoiding severe/hospitalisation/death specifically for those or is that impossible to say to say since studies always add the 2nd shot?

Meanwhile Biontech is on track with Q1 deliveries, promises 75 million doses on top of schedule in Q2 for the EU alone and 700 Million additional doses in 2021 globally, going from 1.3 to 2 Billion.

(sorry, couldn´t find an link in english)
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unter ... 974268b585

best regards
Thomas

Arion640 wrote:

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible and get this all sorted. More importantly, we need to get it out to the developing countries.

It should still be Britain first. No UK made vaccine must be delivered to the EU as long as one British citizen still needs a vaccine.

Dano1977 wrote:

I'm going to have my say on this...

This all stems back to last year when the UK opted out of the EU vaccine procurement programme, deciding to go it alone and finance various vaccine options.

The UK was quick off the mark in securing over 360million doses of then potential vaccines from various pharma companies.

The UK Oxford/AZ contract stipulates that the UK Govt will help build 2 new vaccine production lines in the UK providing AZ fulfills it's UK Govt contractual obligation of 100million doses produced in the UK go to the UK.

The UK invested in potential vaccines, got to the front of the order books first and reaping the rewards with now over 8million vaccinated with the first dose, with over 600,000 done today.

UK seems t have been playing poker. In order to increase the speed of initiate the vaccination program it accepted documentation from the suppliers on emergency basis that might prove to b correct. EU did not.

UK only has been giving the first shot in order to increase the number of people getting vaccinated while most countries in EU holds the second shot in practise meaning that number of people getting the first shot is only 50% compared to UK.

Now the poker game comes into picture. Brexit UK nationalistic approach to the vaccine program to make it into a Brexit reson for UK "why we left" EU, EU started to count. The numbers of vaccinated in UK was to large. When No 10 even told Scotland that the number of jabs / doses sent to Scotland was national security, EU started to act.

So now UK is depending on EU supplies to give the second doses / jab and the facilities AZ is controlling inside UK suddenly becomes a huge problem for AZ because AZ will if it does not not change tactics go to court. If it does I bet that AZ will have problem getting any medicine approved (bad for marketshare) for a while in EU, special while UK press has made AZ to become very Brittish and forgot that it still have a major EU /Swedish) ownership.

seahawk wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I hope AZ can supply the EU properly as fast as possible and get this all sorted. More importantly, we need to get it out to the developing countries.

It should still be Britain first. No UK made vaccine must be delivered to the EU as long as one British citizen still needs a vaccine.

Without EU supplies UK will not produce much. If those are directed to let say AZ factories UK will not be able to produce the second shot it desperately needs.

I have a sensation that the supplies that AZ over the weekend suddenly found is supplies that was supposed to go to UK. It will be interesting to see how this affects the production in UK the next weeks.

By the way if the contract AZ EU was so bad in favor of in this case UK why has the AZ management totally changed tone? What happened behind the scene?

Tugger wrote:

Well the EU is accepting that it erred in this process and is showing this by accepting that it will receive some 40M doses instead of the desired 80M.

AstraZeneca Plc will deliver 9 million additional vaccine doses to the European Union in the first quarter of this year.

The company will start deliveries one week earlier than scheduled and expand its manufacturing capacity in Europe, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Twitter Sunday. The extra doses will bring the total to 40 million for the first quarter, she said.

Read More: Faced With a Vaccine Emergency, the EU Made an Enemy of Everyone
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... f-everyone

AstraZeneca triggered a crisis Jan. 22 when it said that problems at a plant in Belgium meant deliveries to the EU this quarter would be less than half of what was initially planned. As a result, the bloc, which came under fire due to the slow rollout of national vaccination programs, said it would begin restricting the export of vaccines if drugmakers fail to meet delivery targets.

While Astra’s additional doses mark an improvement, they still fall far short of the 80 million doses the EU was expecting.

Some damning points in that article about how the Commission messed up on Friday: -

*Ireland only finding out on social media about the decision to trigger Article 16 (I thought those days about the world hearing about things first on social media were over when Joe Biden was inaugurated?)

*Michel Barnier and the team involved in Brexit negotiations were not involved in the decision-making process (understandable to a point) but were only informed when somebody asked how to inform the UK after the decision had been made (not understandable, should have been consulted much earlier if triggering A16 was being actively considered)

*The poorly redacted contract publication between the Commission and AstraZeneca (we know about that already)

*Comparisons to the Jean-Claude Juncker era and how this would never have happened under his watch (suggests to me there are other issues under Von Der Leyen's leadership that we don't know about, but that's just me speculating)

*Speculation that Stella Kyriakides will be made the scapegoat for this whole sorry mess (if she goes then she wouldn't be the first Commissioner to go under Von Der Leyen's leadership (e.g. Phil Hogan and Golfgate))

Boeing74741R wrote:

Some damning points in that article about how the Commission messed up on Friday: -

And in spite of that it's very much giving the EU's angle. For example it's objectively wrong on this point:

At the same time, deliveries in the U.K. have mostly met expectations

There were meant to be many millions stockpiled by the end of the year which would have meant we could ramp up our vaccination program much quicker. "The U.K. 'will be first to get access' if the vaccine is successful, Sharma said at a briefing. Under the deal, AstraZeneca will make 30 million doses available by September.". So in actual fact, the UK was hit far harder than the EU by delays, but had slack in the plan.

Secondly it focusses on EU anger at vaccines being sent abroad without pointing out the fact it can be legitimate. Unlike other vaccines the AZ one is produced at cost (as per the contract), and if stock has to be stored because, for example, the EMA is dithering over approval, the EU has to notify AZ of the destination country of the vaccines, and the country in question has to pay up. If not, AZ is free to distribute the vaccines to another customer. Again, it's in the contract. I wouldn't be surprised, given the lack of joined up approach in the EU bureaucracy, if that is at the heart of this sorry episode.

The truth here is that the EU has done a service for the UK. In a matter of only a few days, most of the frothing-at-the-mouth Brexiteers on twitter who were previously crowing about the virus situation being a "Plandemic", lockdowns being somehow communist and vaccines having something to do with 5G are now all extremely enthusiastic to get their vaccination. Silver linings.

The overarching theme here is that the EU will fight vigorously for its citizens - at the expense of those who aren't in its borders.

sabenapilot wrote:

Apparently much of the bragging about how much more efficient the British vaccination program is compared to that in the EU is based on the fact it is simply aiming at giving first doses asap and amap, without keeping the second doses in reserve or administering them within the 3 week timeframe as is officially required!!!
So even a temporary cut in deliveries from the EU could spell big troubles because the UK deviated from the routine...
Not to mention it increases chances of creating resistant covid mutants!

IIRC the place with the most Vaccinations of both doses is actually Italy. Personally I'm not a fan of the UK's move to ignore the manufacturer's specifications in terms of the spacing of the vaccines, but I won't pretend to be an expert on such matters and will hope that the decision to space them out further was one informed by the science.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Olddog wrote:

You can find tons of articles on any politicians. The things to consider are what weight and what momentum they have. Der Spiegel bad mouthing UVdL is nothing unusual and is just ignored.

Perhaps so. Though with something as high profile as this and the fallout continuing, it could only be a matter of time before Von Der Leyen’s position becomes untenable if this isn’t resolved quickly.

I'm not especially angry at VDL but I do think she should go, simply for the sake of accountability. At the highest levels all big decisions should be done in a way that is transparent and beyond reproach. We don't want to risk the EU Leadership to be a cacophony of unaccountable incompetence like what we have seen recently in the USA and continue to see in the UK. Competence, accountability and trustworthiness are European Values and leadership should be held to the highest standards of these.

Arion640 wrote:

I agree Ursula seemed quite competent - much more competent that drunk Juncker.

You had this explained to you multiple times on the various Brexit threads. Juncker has sciatica after a freak car accident 30 years ago.

Arion640 wrote:

However, almost blowing up Ireland is very very serious, ROI also blindsided. A matter of this matter should warrant a resignation. Boris again, many mistakes.

You were fine with Boris doing so two weeks ago though?

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... ago/30/01/

sabenapilot wrote:

In a nutshell:
The EU ordered 100m initial doses from A-Z, coming from 4 plants (2 of which in the UK), none of which had any previous obligations according to A-Z (it's litterally in the contract)
The moment the EU calls upon A-Z to start to deliver these doses, A-Z suddenly says it can't deliver them, because there's a production issue in 1 plant in Belgium.
"Oh, dear", said the EU, "then tell us what the new delivery schedule will be, based on production from the 3 remaining plants'.
"No", said A-Z, "it's all just going to come from the other single EU plant".
And after a week of dodging questions from and meetings with the EU, it emerges the 2 British plants suddenly seem to have an obligation to produce for Britain first, despite having explicitly stated such was not the case in the contract with the EU....

There's definitely something fishy going on. When the EU rightly required that vaccines required export declarations, AZ suddenly found a few million more doses.

olle wrote:

Choosing several suppliers increases the chances of having faster access to one or several successful vaccines. In addition, when negotiating together, the purchasing power is greater and conditions such as price and delivery times can be more advantageous.

So far, the EU's portfolio of vaccines totals 2.3 billion doses – more than enough to protect the entire EU population.

A quick reminder that the EU's PPE sourcing scheme was much quicker and cheaper at supplying emergency PPE as the pandemic his than the country who instead just showered juicy no bid contracts on political favorites.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... /ip_20_523

Arion640 wrote:

EU order 2.3 billion vaccines, ridiculous hoarding which prevents the smaller countries having access.

So tell me: is the UK also undertaking "ridiculous hoarding" with their 400million vaccine doses on order? Or do you only apply such standards to the European Union?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ccine.html

Olddog wrote:

So I heard that suddenly AZ fond 9 millions doses? Behind à sofa [/url]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ASTRAZENECA-PLC-4000930/news/AstraZeneca-EU-s-Von-Der-Leyen-says-Astrazeneca-will-deliver-9-mln-more-vaccine-doses-32321138/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiFyuC47MbuAhWi3eAKHWdsCA8QxfQBMAF6BAgJEAE&usg=AOvVaw1YglioV1C51DSswQlactee[/url]

Weird how this happened as soon as the EU began requiring Export Declarations.

Interesting.

But somebody needs to be asking a different question. When the EU have made it very clear they really want the Pfizer vaccine, they don't think the efficacy of the AZ vaccine is good enough and Pfizer have also let them down on deliveries. Pfizer have also chosen now to "do some work" in one of their plants...

Yet why are Pfizer are not being threatened?

There is an issue Pfizer are having which the EU are trying to deflect away from?

Not sure if this has been posted, but it's an interesting read.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rej ... y-12204044

As the row over vaccine supplies heated up this week, the UK government stuck to a simple line.

Ministers and officials repeatedly said they do not want conflict over vaccines. Yet, at the same time, they stated their confidence that they would get the doses they needed.

"We're very confident in our supplies, we're very confident in our contracts and we're going ahead on that basis," the prime minister declared on Wednesday. Behind the scenes, the message is the same. As far as it is possible to tell, the confidence is real.

Dano1977 wrote:

Interesting.

But somebody needs to be asking a different question. When the EU have made it very clear they really want the Pfizer vaccine, they don't think the efficacy of the AZ vaccine is good enough and Pfizer have also let them down on deliveries. Pfizer have also chosen now to "do some work" in one of their plants...

Yet why are Pfizer are not being threatened?

There is an issue Pfizer are having which the EU are trying to deflect away from?

Because Pfizer wasnt supplying other countries in full while claiming they have problems.

And apparently the upgrade went without a hitch, is back on track for Q1 deliveries and, due to the upgrade, will deliver 75 million above schedule in Q2. And 700 Million above schedule until the year is out globally. That is why there wasn't trouble with Biontech

No secret des with anyone else, no fraud, likely leading to the death of people like with AZ.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Interesting.

But somebody needs to be asking a different question. When the EU have made it very clear they really want the Pfizer vaccine, they don't think the efficacy of the AZ vaccine is good enough and Pfizer have also let them down on deliveries. Pfizer have also chosen now to "do some work" in one of their plants...

Yet why are Pfizer are not being threatened?

There is an issue Pfizer are having which the EU are trying to deflect away from?

Because Pfizer wasnt supplying other countries in full while claiming they have problems.

And apparently the upgrade went without a hitch, is back on track for Q1 deliveries and, due to the upgrade, will deliver 75 million above schedule in Q2. And 700 Million above schedule until the year is out globally. That is why there wasn't trouble with Biontech

No secret des with anyone else, no fraud, likely leading to the death of people like with AZ.

Best regards
Thomas

There is no fraud, secret deals with AZ, The UK's contract was watertight with Oxford AZ. Simply put, The European Drug procurement programme was late to the party and now blaming everybody else, when they should be looking at themselves.

UVDL lied to the people of Europe or worst still wasn't correctly briefed on the subject.

Lets face it, UVDL has a history of screw ups, especially as German defence minister with procurements of new equipment.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula- ... ent-truth/

Europe, screwed up, You ordered too little and too late.

Even Peter Tiede of Bild writing for The Times today even admits...

The EU’s contract with Astrazeneca reveals that the commission negotiated badly and did not secure any binding rights. It did not do what it is supposed to do: take care of our Europe. And our 27 governments either did not intervene or intervened too late

And in other news....

UK orders 40million more doses of Valneva's Covid vaccine
The Government has ordered an extra 40 million doses of the Valneva Covid-19 vaccine which is being manufactured in Scotland.

The move means 100 million doses of Valneva have now been put on order, enough for every adult in the UK, with the latest batch earmarked for delivery in 2022.

The Government has also retained options over a further 90 million doses for supply between 2023 and 2025.

https://valneva.com/press-release/valne ... 9-vaccine/

Dano1977 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Interesting.

But somebody needs to be asking a different question. When the EU have made it very clear they really want the Pfizer vaccine, they don't think the efficacy of the AZ vaccine is good enough and Pfizer have also let them down on deliveries. Pfizer have also chosen now to "do some work" in one of their plants...

Yet why are Pfizer are not being threatened?

There is an issue Pfizer are having which the EU are trying to deflect away from?

Because Pfizer wasnt supplying other countries in full while claiming they have problems.

And apparently the upgrade went without a hitch, is back on track for Q1 deliveries and, due to the upgrade, will deliver 75 million above schedule in Q2. And 700 Million above schedule until the year is out globally. That is why there wasn't trouble with Biontech

No secret des with anyone else, no fraud, likely leading to the death of people like with AZ.

Best regards
Thomas

There is no fraud,

AZ signed a contract specifically stating they have no colliding obligations, I.e. they put in writing there is no contract with the UK. And that is fraud, under German law it would also be murder, under the applicable Belgium law it is apparently, and unfortunately, only manslaughter.

secret deals with AZ

Have you seen it? Did anyone know it gave the UK priority over other customers, even when contractually guaranteed there is no such prioritized contract? That is as secret as it gets. Unless the UK makes the contract public, it simply doesn't exist. If it exists, AZs management committed fraud. Well, they committed fraud in any case. What do you call it when companies lie in contracts?

The UK's contract was watertight with Oxford AZ.

So is the EUs contract, no competing obligations.

Lets face it, UVDL has a history of screw ups, especially as German defence minister with procurements of new equipment.

No argument there, she is horrible. AZ management still committed fraud, and since that fraud will lead to the death of people, manslaughter. They either deliver 400 million doses by June 30th, or they hopefully will be looked up for decades. That realisation had AZ management suddenly find millions of additional doses, a day after saying that is impossible.

Best regards
Thomas

BaconButty wrote:

Secondly it focusses on EU anger at vaccines being sent abroad without pointing out the fact it can be legitimate. Unlike other vaccines the AZ one is produced at cost (as per the contract),

Only the first batch is produce at cost as repayment for EU investment in the vaccine development.

It's a pretty standard clause for cost-sharing development agreements.

tommy1808 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Because Pfizer wasnt supplying other countries in full while claiming they have problems.

And apparently the upgrade went without a hitch, is back on track for Q1 deliveries and, due to the upgrade, will deliver 75 million above schedule in Q2. And 700 Million above schedule until the year is out globally. That is why there wasn't trouble with Biontech

No secret des with anyone else, no fraud, likely leading to the death of people like with AZ.

Best regards
Thomas

There is no fraud,

AZ signed a contract specifically stating they have no colliding obligations, I.e. they put in writing there is no contract with the UK. And that is fraud, under German law it would also be murder, under the applicable Belgium law it is apparently, and unfortunately, only manslaughter.

secret deals with AZ

Have you seen it? Did anyone know it gave the UK priority over other customers, even when contractually guaranteed there is no such prioritized contract? That is as secret as it gets. Unless the UK makes the contract public, it simply doesn't exist. If it exists, AZs management committed fraud. Well, they committed fraud in any case. What do you call it when companies lie in contracts?

The UK's contract was watertight with Oxford AZ.

So is the EUs contract, no competing obligations.

Lets face it, UVDL has a history of screw ups, especially as German defence minister with procurements of new equipment.

No argument there, she is horrible. AZ management still committed fraud, and since that fraud will lead to the death of people, manslaughter. They either deliver 400 million doses by June 30th, or they hopefully will be looked up for decades. That realisation had AZ management suddenly find millions of additional doses, a day after saying that is impossible.

Best regards
Thomas

Pfizer failed to supply the 12.5 million doses they had promised the EU in 2020
Moderna are reducing supplies in February by 20%
Sanofi aren't even in a position to come one line with production until the summer
Curevac - who knows - you tell me.

I guess the fact that Pfizer and Moderna are US owned and backed by the full power of US legal teams has no bearing on the EU not uttering a squeak against them?
No, let's pick on the UK/Swedish owned firm - much easier target.

The contracts were signed at time when the drugs were still under trial. There could have been no certainty the vaccines would even be efficacious - in fact Germany, France and the US have all claimed to varying extents that AZ isn't. Yet the EU would have us believe their whole vaccination strategy is critically dependent on huge shipments of AZ right now..

How could production so soon after trials be anything but best efforts for anyone. Lets not forget AZ are producing at zero profit. They should be applauded for getting into production so early and supported in every way to ramp up production.

No - I have no sympathy with your view at all - no sympathy with the EU commission - and my respect for Macron and Germany has taken a nosedive.


These are the vaccine doses ordered by the EU:

AstraZeneca (400 million doses)
Sanofi-GSK (300 million doses)
Johnson and Johnson (400 million doses )
BioNTech-Pfizer (600 million doses)
CureVac (405 million doses)
Moderna (160 million doses)

Sanofi's a bust. CureVac has got nowhere, despite high EU investment. J&J hasn't been submitted for approval anywhere yet. So the EU is left with AZ, Pfizer and Moderna.

Pfizer is not a great option for many countries, because it needs major deep-freeze facililties that many of the poorer EU countries can't easily provide. This includes the Netherlands, who were banking on AZ. Moderna is easier, but still needs a serious cold-chain delivery process. Both are novel mRNA biotech, and the EU is famously nervous about all vaccines.


More criticism of Ursula

“On best effort, the CEO of AstraZeneca was right,” says Gustav Oertzen, a lecturer at Leuphana University in Germany.

“This is all about ‘best reasonable effort’. No clear commitments for delivery, no recognisable penalties, unless in the redacted part."

Oertzen added that he had "no idea what von der Leyen means by 'crystal clear commitments' based on this contract.”

Full report here from Euronews

https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/29/why ... en-so-slow

It seems that Johnsson and Johnsson is about to get approvals.

In USA it will probably be used from next week;

Considering that EU approval has been around 4-6 weeks after USA and UK emergency approvals I supposed we can expect usage of J&J in EU from mid march when it is time for the broader population.

----------------------------------------


The Johnson & Johnson vaccine also provided less immunity among trial participants in South Africa, where a set of mutations threatens to accelerate the deadliness of the global pandemic. In that study, the efficacy rate was just 57 percent. The manufacturers of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have reported similar concerns with their vaccines, and are studying different dosing and formulation strategies in the event new variants of the coronavirus outwit their vaccines.

The new vaccine candidate is expected to be reviewed for emergency use authorization by U.S. Food and Drug Administration as soon as next week. If approved, experts say the Johnson & Johnson single-dose vaccine could streamline a national COVID-19 vaccination administration campaign that has to date been criticized as scattered and lethargic. Currently, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna versions must be given in two doses several weeks apart.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... -it-works/

tommy1808 wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

that we see efficacy in the 50-80% range after one single dose.

are there numbers regarding avoiding severe/hospitalisation/death specifically for those or is that impossible to say to say since studies always add the 2nd shot?

It's hard to say because the numbers available for disease between doses 1 and 2 are so small, but my guess (and it is only an educated guess) is that you would see a substantial reduction in severity.

AstraZeneca (400 million doses) - 200 million people
Sanofi-GSK (300 million doses) - 0 people
Johnson and Johnson (400 million doses ) - 200 million people
BioNTech-Pfizer (600 million doses) - 300 million people
CureVac (405 million doses) - 0 people
Moderna (160 million doses) - 80 million people

So right now will 2 failures EU has vaccine for 780 million people.

Dano1977 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

There is no fraud,

AZ signed a contract specifically stating they have no colliding obligations, I.e. they put in writing there is no contract with the UK. And that is fraud, under German law it would also be murder, under the applicable Belgium law it is apparently, and unfortunately, only manslaughter.

secret deals with AZ

Have you seen it? Did anyone know it gave the UK priority over other customers, even when contractually guaranteed there is no such prioritized contract? That is as secret as it gets. Unless the UK makes the contract public, it simply doesn't exist. If it exists, AZs management committed fraud. Well, they committed fraud in any case. What do you call it when companies lie in contracts?

The UK's contract was watertight with Oxford AZ.

So is the EUs contract, no competing obligations.

Lets face it, UVDL has a history of screw ups, especially as German defence minister with procurements of new equipment.

No argument there, she is horrible. AZ management still committed fraud, and since that fraud will lead to the death of people, manslaughter. They either deliver 400 million doses by June 30th, or they hopefully will be looked up for decades. That realisation had AZ management suddenly find millions of additional doses, a day after saying that is impossible.

Best regards
Thomas

Pfizer failed to supply the 12.5 million doses they had promised the EU in 2020
Moderna are reducing supplies in February by 20%
Sanofi aren't even in a position to come one line with production until the summer
Curevac - who knows - you tell me.

They did best reasonable effort, AZ committed fraud by lying about other obligations in the contract. If other companies also did funny business it will come out in time, the only company we know to have committed fraud is AZ.

Best regards
Thomas

olle wrote:

Johnson and Johnson (400 million doses ) - 200 million people

Its single dose, so 400 million people, total: 980 million.

And CuraVec is in the last stages of the trial and seems to be working so far, even planning to start deliveries in 2Q (10 million Dosis), expecting approval.

Best regards
Thomas

olle wrote:

It seems that Johnsson and Johnsson is about to get approvals.

In USA it will probably be used from next week;

Considering that EU approval has been around 4-6 weeks after USA and UK emergency approvals I supposed we can expect usage of J&J in EU from mid march when it is time for the broader population.

----------------------------------------


The Johnson & Johnson vaccine also provided less immunity among trial participants in South Africa, where a set of mutations threatens to accelerate the deadliness of the global pandemic. In that study, the efficacy rate was just 57 percent. The manufacturers of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have reported similar concerns with their vaccines, and are studying different dosing and formulation strategies in the event new variants of the coronavirus outwit their vaccines.

The new vaccine candidate is expected to be reviewed for emergency use authorization by U.S. Food and Drug Administration as soon as next week. If approved, experts say the Johnson & Johnson single-dose vaccine could streamline a national COVID-19 vaccination administration campaign that has to date been criticized as scattered and lethargic. Currently, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna versions must be given in two doses several weeks apart.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... -it-works/

It won't be approved for use in the US by next week. Probably not until late February or early March.

tommy1808 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

AZ signed a contract specifically stating they have no colliding obligations, I.e. they put in writing there is no contract with the UK. And that is fraud, under German law it would also be murder, under the applicable Belgium law it is apparently, and unfortunately, only manslaughter.



Have you seen it? Did anyone know it gave the UK priority over other customers, even when contractually guaranteed there is no such prioritized contract? That is as secret as it gets. Unless the UK makes the contract public, it simply doesn't exist. If it exists, AZs management committed fraud. Well, they committed fraud in any case. What do you call it when companies lie in contracts?



So is the EUs contract, no competing obligations.



No argument there, she is horrible. AZ management still committed fraud, and since that fraud will lead to the death of people, manslaughter. They either deliver 400 million doses by June 30th, or they hopefully will be looked up for decades. That realisation had AZ management suddenly find millions of additional doses, a day after saying that is impossible.

Best regards
Thomas

Pfizer failed to supply the 12.5 million doses they had promised the EU in 2020
Moderna are reducing supplies in February by 20%
Sanofi aren't even in a position to come one line with production until the summer
Curevac - who knows - you tell me.

They did best reasonable effort, AZ committed fraud by lying about other obligations in the contract. If other companies also did funny business it will come out in time, the only company we know to have committed fraud is AZ.

Best regards
Thomas

You are very vocal when it comes to claiming AZ committed fraud.
I haven’t read all of the contract, but read a few legal opinions, and nobody came up with the word fraud.
Do you have any (solid) facts to support your claim?