COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Deeper Blue

I complain about the HSE and government as much as anyone but I don't think they can be criticised for the vaccine rollout so far.

Suggesting that Ireland should be purchasing their own vaccines outside of the EU agreement is nonsense. Comparing us to Germany is equally nonsensical.

lbj666

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Apparently that's irrelevant. The fact Germany are getting further stock in September is proof we can order millions of doses for immediate delivery.

What? explain how its irrelevant, they are still getting no more than their EU allocation between now and September.

ACitizenErased

El Sueño wrote: »

I complain about the HSE and government as much as anyone but I don't think they can be criticised for the vaccine rollout so far.

Suggesting that Ireland should be purchasing their own vaccines outside of the EU agreement is nonsense. Comparing us to Germany is equally nonsensical.

Sad to see the thread being constantly derailed by that nonsense tbh, nothing being done about it :rolleyes:

CrabRevolution

lbj666 wrote: »

What? explain how its irrelevant, they are still getting no more than their EU allocation between now and September.

I'm in agreement with you, hence the "apparently".

Russman

Melanchthon wrote: »

Did Germany break the agreement? I am looking for an official statement from an EU official stating that they didn't, has Germany been sanctioned for this?
Answer is no to both those questions

It’s an unfortunate reality that might is right. Germany is big enough and wealthy enough relative to us to plot its own course. Whether they did or not, it doesn’t impact our allocation.
If we did a solo run do you think we’d get any sympathy when the time comes for the EU as a bloc and the ECB to deal with all the COVID borrowings ? We’re much better off staying within our club.

Melanchthon

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Can you point out the rule they're breaking? I don't mean this in a rhetorical sense but I'd be interested in seeing it.

I haven't looked into the original document, but we have contradictory statements

Von der Leyen had insisted last week that unilateral efforts would not be in line with the EU’s vaccine strategy designed to ensure that every member state is covered.

“It’s legally binding,” she had said. “We have all agreed, legally binding, that there will be no parallel negotiations, no parallel contracts … We’re all working together.”

https://www.theguardian.com./world/2021/jan/11/brussels-appeals-for-vaccine-solidarity-across-member-states

The third EU diplomat conceded the vaccine strategy is not a “proper international agreement as such, [but] more of a gentleman’s agreement.” So there is "no way to sanction anyone. And [the Commission is] trying to make it look correct now."

The diplomat added that this isn't an issue: "As long as the EU contracts are delivered as promised, it’s OK."

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-buys-extra-coronavirus-vaccine-doses-from-eu-countries/

Article 7: Obligation not to negotiate separately
By signing the present Agreement, the Participating Member States confirm their
participation in the procedure and agree not to launch their own procedures for advance purchase of that vaccine with the same manufacturers

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/annex_to_the_commission_decision_on_approving_the_agreement_with_member_states_on_procuring_covid-19_vaccines_on_behalf_of_the_member_states_and_related_procedures_.pdf


In short my point is, the agreement is either toothless, in which case Ireland can negotiate externally or its got teeth in which case Germany has broken the rules at a time of crisis and should be sanctioned.
I keep banging on this point about the lack of EU officials saying what Germany did was legal because its important, if it was clearly legal they would be saying it loud and clear because its a useful thing for people skeptical of EU policy to bring up.

Melanchthon

Russman wrote: »

If we did a solo run do you think we’d get any sympathy when the time comes for the EU as a bloc and the ECB to deal with all the COVID borrowings ? We’re much better off staying within our club.

We already got one of the worst deals in relation to COVID funding from the EU (probably thanks to having Michael Martin). We are receiving 3 Billion out of 750 billion, thats 0.4% of the fund, even for a small wealthy enough country thats terrible.

lbj666

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Yes, Pfizer have a large footprint in Ireland so would take the call... People are dying, we need to increase the vaccination rollout.

Benjamin Netanyahu phoned Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/unveiling-deal-netanyahu-promises-enough-vaccines-to-beat-covid-by-end-of-march/

I think the question is more how the hell Israel manage to get such early supplies , rather than why cant every other country in the world get the same proportion. Because that's pretty much whats been suggested, if you push the case for Ireland to do so, the same argument can be made everywhere else and there ensues a totally pointless bidding war.

lbj666

Melanchthon wrote: »

I haven't looked into the original document, but we have contradictory statements



https://www.theguardian.com./world/2021/jan/11/brussels-appeals-for-vaccine-solidarity-across-member-states



https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-buys-extra-coronavirus-vaccine-doses-from-eu-countries/



https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/annex_to_the_commission_decision_on_approving_the_agreement_with_member_states_on_procuring_covid-19_vaccines_on_behalf_of_the_member_states_and_related_procedures_.pdf


In short my point is, the agreement is either toothless, in which case Ireland can negotiate externally or its got teeth in which case Germany has broken the rules at a time of crisis and should be sanctioned.
I keep banging on this point about the lack of EU officials saying what Germany did was legal because its important, if it was clearly legal they would be saying it loud and clear because its a useful thing for people skeptical of EU policy to bring up.

And let me keep banging on about the German deal coming into effect after the EU deal

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-pfizer/eu-seeks-more-doses-of-pfizer-vaccine-as-germany-outlines-earlier-deal-idUKKBN29916N?edition-redirect=uk

Germany said on Monday that it had agreed with BioNTech last September to supply an additional 30 million doses on a bilateral basis. This was a memorandum of understanding, of which the EU was aware, the Health Ministry said.

That month, Germany announced 375 million euros ($460 million) of funding for BioNTech, a biotech startup based in Mainz, to help speed research and expand production capacity in Germany.

Health Minister Jens Spahn has said national deals were possible with the same vaccine makers once the EU has concluded its own contract and as long as supplies to EU countries were not disrupted.

Melanchthon

lbj666 wrote: »

Health Minister Jens Spahn has said national deals were possible with the same vaccine makers once the EU has concluded its own contract and as long as supplies to EU countries were not disrupted.[/I]

He's a German minister of course he is going to say it didn't break the rules, I could quote lots of Hungarian or Polish ministers talking about EU stuff does that mean they don't break any EU rules?

If it was clearly within the rules we would have a EU official clearly stating this fact so people wouldn't be bringing it up particularly in Italy etc? Why don't we? They have refused to answer this question.

Edit also this seems to point against Spahns statement

There remains the issue of how much the Commission knew, and when.

Until this week, it did not acknowledge any bilateral agreements EU countries had with vaccine producers.

On Wednesday, the Commission acknowledged Berlin’s separate deal with BioNTech but said its understanding was that the doses would come from the Commission’s 100 million top-up in December.

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-buys-extra-coronavirus-vaccine-doses-from-eu-countries/

lbj666

Melanchthon wrote: »

He's a German minister of course he is going to say it didn't break the rules, I could quote lots of Hungarian or Polish ministers talking about EU stuff does that mean they don't break any EU rules?

If it was clearly within the rules we would have a EU official clearly stating this fact so people wouldn't be bringing it up particularly in Italy etc? Why don't we? They have refused to answer this question.

But the Germans have acknowledged they aren't boosting supply while receiving the EU allocation, it would be very obvious if they were, so what do they have to hide or lie about.

Melanchthon

lbj666 wrote: »

But the Germans have acknowledged they aren't boosting supply while receiving the EU allocation, it would be very obvious if they were, so what do they have to hide or lie about.

They received 10 times the amount of doses of Italy in the first stage of the roll-out which caused controversy and as far as I know there hasn't been an explanation as too why?

Edit: also so if Germany is going to get 30 million doses out of a 100 million top-up order which seems off?

astrofool

Melanchthon wrote: »

He's a German minister of course he is going to say it didn't break the rules, I could quote lots of Hungarian or Polish ministers talking about EU stuff does that mean they don't break any EU rules?

If it was clearly within the rules we would have a EU official clearly stating this fact so people wouldn't be bringing it up particularly in Italy etc? Why don't we? They have refused to answer this question.

Edit also this seems to point against Spahns statement


https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-buys-extra-coronavirus-vaccine-doses-from-eu-countries/

What use is ordering extra vaccines for September by which time we'll have enough vaccines for everyone anyway?

Please explain yourself.

Necro

Mod:

Can we get back on topic again please, a lot of the more recent posts belong in the Politics forum. This is a thread about the Vaccine and testing procedures, if you want to discuss the wider issues on EU allocation it doesn't belong here. Thanks.

lbj666

I am parking the allocation discussion so , nice and lively, but tend to stay away from other rabbitholes/threads.

To follow on from something else earlier, for Astra Zeneca is it possible that EMA may approve the 3-4week interval on the basis of better data and review again when better data on the 8-12 week is available?

While it would be great to have as an option in February, having it as an option by summertime could strategically be very important.
Infection levels are going to be really hard to control during summer (generally cause everyones parents will have been jabbed), the hospitalization rate in the 15-55 group is not to be dismissed, its like 3.5% only a portion would have jabbed in group 7. If the UK are banking that 1 dose reduces hospitalization rates by 90%, this means you could almost tack on another 0 to infection levels before it stressed the health system.

Galwayguy35

Amirani wrote: »

You seem to be even further out of your depth on Health.

Is that so.

Smart and all as you think you are its not me saying it but health workers themselves.

Maybe you should stick to soccer.

lucernarian

lbj666 wrote: »

I am parking the allocation discussion so , nice and lively, but tend to stay away from other rabbitholes/threads.

To follow on from something else earlier, for Astra Zeneca is it possible that EMA may approve the 3-4week interval on the basis of better data and review again when better data on the 8-12 week is available?

While it would be great to have as an option in February, having it as an option by summertime could strategically be very important.
Infection levels are going to be really hard to control during summer (generally cause everyones parents will have been jabbed), the hospitalization rate in the 15-55 group is not to be dismissed, its like 3.5% only a portion would have jabbed in group 7. If the UK are banking that 1 dose reduces hospitalization rates by 90%, this means you could almost tack on another 0 to infection levels before it stressed the health system.

If there was better data expected in the future and would base a conditional approval on that, would that allow for an approval but only for certain age groups and existing conditions pending that data? It might nearly address issues of efficacy Vs overall risk in delaying approval any further.

Melanchthon

lbj666 wrote: »

To follow on from something else earlier, for Astra Zeneca is it possible that EMA may approve the 3-4week interval on the basis of better data and review again when better data on the 8-12 week is available?

Genuine question here, does the EMA allow evidence from public health data rather than officially designated trials. With both the UK and now India rolling it out there should be a vast amount of data soon available, India as far as I know is sticking to a 28 day gap.

On a similar note, now that Sinovac (Chinese) and Sputnik (Russia) are being used outside their country of origin presumably we should be seeing more reliable open data, both these are probably fairly irrelevant to Europe but along with Oxford/Astra Zeneca they may be important for other countries.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/13/chinas-sinovac-vaccine-reportedly-50point4percent-effective-in-brazilian-trial.html

India apparently gave 224000 first doses over the weekend which is impressive but they do have a massive population but also their own supply line

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-vaccinates-224-301-individuals-over-two-days-of-covid-19-vaccination-drive-101610909794711.html

Other news, as far as I know this could be important for the UK as if its effective though its a French company they have manufacturing capacity in the UK, will the UK rush approval if they have a number of other vaccines already approved

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-valneva/valneva-says-uk-rollout-of-covid-19-vaccine-could-start-in-july-september-report-idUSKBN29M0D9

Bit cynical

Just looking at the chart for total vaccinations done, Ireland seems to be doing fairly well by EU standards with roughly half those done by Denmark per capita. However if we include other countries including Israel we see that the EU as a whole is not doing that well. Ireland has about 1.5% of the population vaccinated but Isreal has almost a quarter completed. Next best is the UAE with almost a fifth followed by fellow Gulf country, Bahrain with 9% covered.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Just looking at the chart for total vaccinations done, Ireland seems to be doing fairly well by EU standards with roughly half those done by Denmark per capita. However if we include other countries including Israel we see that the EU as a whole is not doing that well. Ireland has about 1.5% of the population vaccinated but Isreal has almost a quarter completed. Next best is the UAE with almost a fifth followed by fellow Gulf country, Bahrain with 9% covered.

It’s about once per page now

Wyldwood

Apologies if this has been asked before, I did a search but couldn't find an answer. When they say the AstraZeneca vaccine has c.70% efficacy, am I right in thinking that only 7 out of 10 people are protected?
If so, that statistic would make me think twice about taking the AstraZeneca vaccine, which the GPs will be distributing apparently, as a 30% risk is still too high for my comfort. I'm in a vulnerable group (asthmatic & over 65)

Wyldwood

Wyldwood wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked before, I did a search but couldn't find an answer. When they say the AstraZeneca vaccine has c.70% efficacy, am I right in thinking that only 7 out of 10 people are protected?
If so, that statistic would make me think twice about taking the AstraZeneca vaccine, which the GPs will be distributing apparently, as a 30% risk is still too high for my comfort. I'm in a vulnerable group (asthmatic & over 65)

In testing no subjects who received the AZ vaccine developed serious illness.

Stark

Wyldwood wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked before, I did a search but couldn't find an answer. When they say the AstraZeneca vaccine has c.70% efficacy, am I right in thinking that only 7 out of 10 people are protected?
If so, that statistic would make me think twice about taking the AstraZeneca vaccine, which the GPs will be distributing apparently, as a 30% risk is still too high for my comfort. I'm in a vulnerable group (asthmatic & over 65)

Afaik we should be getting new results soon based on the tweaked dosing schedules (longer interval between two full doses). Apparently the results are much better based on the new schedule.

Wyldwood

Thanks, Raind, but my question was more to do with the risk of not being protected after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine if only 7 out of 10 people will be protected.

So is 70% efficacy 7 out of 10 people or will each vaccinated person be 70% protected?

Wyldwood

Wyldwood wrote: »

Thanks, Raind, but my question was more to do with the risk of not being protected after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine if only 7 out of 10 people will be protected.

So is 70% efficacy 7 out of 10 people or will each vaccinated person be 70% protected?

The data suggests 7 out of 10 won’t get ill. The other 3 out 10 will get mild illness

Wyldwood

Thanks again Raind. That's what I thought

snotboogie

Bit cynical wrote: »

Just looking at the chart for total vaccinations done, Ireland seems to be doing fairly well by EU standards with roughly half those done by Denmark per capita. However if we include other countries including Israel we see that the EU as a whole is not doing that well. Ireland has about 1.5% of the population vaccinated but Isreal has almost a quarter completed. Next best is the UAE with almost a fifth followed by fellow Gulf country, Bahrain with 9% covered.

Vaccination seems to have slowed down a bit in Israel, while it is ramping up in the UAE. Israel are hitting about 70k per day now while the UAE vaccinated a high of 115k today. Very similar population, with 10 million in the UAE vs 9 million in Israel. UAE will likely overtake them as the most per capita vaccinated in about a week or so at the current rate. UAE are the only country hitting over the 1% of their population per day mark at the moment, Israel are the only other country to reach that achievement at any stage. It probably helps the UAE that they have two vaccines (Pfizer and Sinopharm) compared to just Pfizer in Israel.

Interestingly Ireland do have one of the better trend lines globally in terms of ramping up vaccination, I'd imagine we will level off a bit this week with the Pfizer issues but we should really keep the good trend going when Pfizer pick up again the week after and especially when AstraZeneca get approved at the end of the month. The big questions to be answered are on Janssens single shot effectiveness and how fast they can pump out supply in the EU if it is effective (seen very negative articles on their US supply if approved but nothing on the EU). If there are positive answers to those questions I honestly think we will jump way up the table to one of the best performing in the world.

Wyldwood wrote: »

Thanks again Raind. That's what I thought

It doesn't seem to be what you thought. If you are in the 30% who get infected the vaccine still offers protection as you are far more likely to get a mild illness.

lbj666

Wyldwood wrote: »

Thanks, Raind, but my question was more to do with the risk of not being protected after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine if only 7 out of 10 people will be protected.

So is 70% efficacy 7 out of 10 people or will each vaccinated person be 70% protected?

I wouldnt be so sure that you would definitely be pencilled in for the AZ vacine either. If there are unlying health risks along with your age you may be referred to get the pfizer/moderna. More clarity on this will come in the next few weeks, we need AZ to be approved first too of course

afatbollix

Wyldwood wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked before, I did a search but couldn't find an answer. When they say the AstraZeneca vaccine has c.70% efficacy, am I right in thinking that only 7 out of 10 people are protected?
If so, that statistic would make me think twice about taking the AstraZeneca vaccine, which the GPs will be distributing apparently, as a 30% risk is still too high for my comfort. I'm in a vulnerable group (asthmatic & over 65)

Deleted User wrote: »

The data suggests 7 out of 10 won’t get ill. The other 3 out 10 will get mild illness

The other thing with the Oxford vaccine is that they were testing all trial people every week for Covid. Symptoms or not.

The other vaccines only tested if they had covid after getting major symptoms after a check up.

I personally feel this has skewed the numbers.

lbj666

lucernarian wrote: »

If there was better data expected in the future and would base a conditional approval on that, would that allow for an approval but only for certain age groups and existing conditions pending that data? It might nearly address issues of efficacy Vs overall risk in delaying approval any further.

Was it the age groups in the data or the volume of trial data that was the issue?