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

Marhay70

Just listening to Luke O'Neill on radio and he says a contact of his, who is a high level scientist in Astra/Zeneca, says there is no shortage of data on how effective their vaccine is in over 65s, it just hasn't been released.
I just can't begin to figure out what the fcuk is going on between them and the EU, it seems to be toys out of the pram on all sides.

is_that_so

Marhay70 wrote: »

Just listening to Luke O'Neill on radio and he says a contact of his, who is a high level scientist in Astra/Zeneca, says there is no shortage of data on how effective their vaccine is in over 65s, it just hasn't been released.
I just can't begin to figure out what the fcuk is going on between them and the EU, it seems to be toys out of the pram on all sides.

It's all in response to the number of over 65s in the trial, which was quite limited. We'll have to wait for an overall guidance from the EMA, but there is nothing stopping countries making their own calls. What what Germany has done.

mohawk

Irish Stones wrote: »

In the 1918 Pandemic, the highest number of victims was among the younger poeple. The elderly were much more immune and fought the virus better.

It’s wouldn't be the consensus view that the older people fought the virus better because they were more immune. In places like the war front they were far less exposed to the virus. You are correct that the Spanish Flu did indeed kill more younger people and one theory is because of Cytokine Storm. Basically the Spanish Flu sent immune systems into hyperdrive and as younger people have stronger immune systems there were stronger Cytokine storms.

funnydoggy

Today's the day right? Feels good

plastic glass

Itsaduck1 wrote: »

I'd give it to teachers next if that happens

Could have 1st doses done by the time schools open again

Teachers? Teachers! Before people with medical conditions that put them at risk of dying from Covid-19?
Norma and the unions have a lot to answer for.

Marhay70

is_that_so wrote: »

It's all in response to the number of over 65s in the trial, which was quite limited. We'll have to wait for an overall guidance from the EMA, but there is nothing stopping countries making their own calls. What what Germany has done.

I would assume, from what was said, the data included what was collected since the roll out began, which again I assumed was being supplied to the EU as part of their rolling review.
I'm not privy to the communications between AZ and EU but surely it's been known for months what the percentage of over 65s was in the trial, if it wasn't sufficient and the data wasn't going to be strong, why consider that group for vaccination in the first place. I just wish some honest broker was available in all this ****.

lbj666

Marhay70 wrote: »

I would assume, from what was said, the data included what was collected since the roll out began, which again I assumed was being supplied to the EU as part of their rolling review.
I'm not privy to the communications between AZ and EU but surely it's been known for months what the percentage of over 65s was in the trial, if it wasn't sufficient and the data wasn't going to be strong, why consider that group for vaccination in the first place. I just wish some honest broker was available in all this ****.

You still have to present who is of highest priority irrespective of whether logistically its gets rolled out that way.

is_that_so

Marhay70 wrote: »

I would assume, from what was said, the data included what was collected since the roll out began, which again I assumed was being supplied to the EU as part of their rolling review.
I'm not privy to the communications between AZ and EU but surely it's been known for months what the percentage of over 65s was in the trial, if it wasn't sufficient and the data wasn't going to be strong, why consider that group for vaccination in the first place. I just wish some honest broker was available in all this ****.

It was known but until AZ went for approval it didn't matter what view anyone had. This current spat aside, AZ have given regulators cause for concern.

seamus

Itsaduck1 wrote: »

I'd give it to teachers next if that happens

Could have 1st doses done by the time schools open again

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39038-provisional-vaccine-allocation-groups/

If it's not recommended for over-65s, there are five other higher priority groups who will get it before the teachers.

is_that_so

So colchicine may not be a great hope.

Many in the international science community reacted with disappointment and not a little frustration on Wednesday, after finally seeing statistical data from a study on the effectiveness of medication colchicine.

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/not-statistically-significant-researchers-worldwide-react-with-disappointment-over-montreal-covid-treatment-study-1.5283839

funnydoggy

is_that_so wrote: »

So colchicine may not be a great hope.



https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/not-statistically-significant-researchers-worldwide-react-with-disappointment-over-montreal-covid-treatment-study-1.5283839

Shame.


Any update on Eli Lilly's treatment?


https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/new-data-show-treatment-lillys-neutralizing-antibodies

stephenjmcd

For those interested, the AZ contract

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1355111404622241794?s=19

gmisk

stephenjmcd wrote: »

For those interested, the AZ contract

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1355111404622241794?s=19

I would say the "experts" will now switch from being virologists to contract law specialists...

stephenjmcd

stephenjmcd wrote: »

For those interested, the AZ contract

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1355111404622241794?s=19

6.2. Capacity Limitations. In the event AstraZeneca's ability to fulfill its
obligations under this Agreement is impeded by a competing agreement entered into by
or on behalf of the Commission, AstraZeneca shall promptly inform the Commission.
While AstraZeneca shall continue to use Best Reasonable Efforts to engage with its
own contract manufacturers and suppliers to utilize the capacity and/or components, the
Commission will assist in finding a mutually acceptable solution for this Agreement
and the competing agreement. To the extent AstraZeneca’s performance under this
Agreement is impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be
deemed in breach of this Agreement as a result of any such delay due to the
aforementioned competing agreement(s).

.

AdamD

Contract clearly says UK plants would be used

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

6.2. Capacity Limitations. In the event AstraZeneca's ability to fulfill its
obligations under this Agreement is impeded by a competing agreement entered into by
or on behalf of the Commission, AstraZeneca shall promptly inform the Commission.
While AstraZeneca shall continue to use Best Reasonable Efforts to engage with its
own contract manufacturers and suppliers to utilize the capacity and/or components, the
Commission will assist in finding a mutually acceptable solution for this Agreement
and the competing agreement. To the extent AstraZeneca’s performance under this
Agreement is impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be
deemed in breach of this Agreement as a result of any such delay due to the
aforementioned competing agreement(s).

So the EU don't really have much of a leg to stand on?

Marhay70

markodaly wrote: »

So the EU don't really have much of a leg to stand on?

What was the competing agreement?

MerlinSouthDub

Deleted User wrote: »

6.2. Capacity Limitations. In the event AstraZeneca's ability to fulfill its
obligations under this Agreement is impeded by a competing agreement entered into by
or on behalf of the Commission, AstraZeneca shall promptly inform the Commission.
While AstraZeneca shall continue to use Best Reasonable Efforts to engage with its
own contract manufacturers and suppliers to utilize the capacity and/or components, the
Commission will assist in finding a mutually acceptable solution for this Agreement
and the competing agreement. To the extent AstraZeneca’s performance under this
Agreement is impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be
deemed in breach of this Agreement as a result of any such delay due to the
aforementioned competing agreement(s).

That refers to competing agreements entered into by the EU, not other agreements entered into by AstraZeneca.

Russman

Deleted User wrote: »

.

That's a competing agreement entered into by the Commission, not the company though ?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

So the EU don't really have much of a leg to stand on?

I think this section reads the other way around on re-read - its if another EU agreement impacts AZ

markodaly

Marhay70 wrote: »

What was the competing agreement?

Woudnt they be agreements with the UK?

Marhay70

Yeah, it says "a competing agreement by or on behalf of the Commission". I'm no lawyer but that would suggest to me that it would need to be the Commission entering the contract.

Hmmzis

Interesting study on correlates of protection in military recruits:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.26.21250535v1.full.pdf+html

The tables towards the end contain all the interesting bits if you would like to skip over the text.

TL;DL - a neutralization antibody titer of 1:20 or above looks to be greatly associated with prevention of subsequent infections (~80% efficacy).

Limitations:
- This is from a wild type infection
- Study population is young healthy adults

Van.Bosch

Marhay70 wrote: »

Yeah, it says "a competing agreement by or on behalf of the Commission". I'm no lawyer but that would suggest to me that it would need to be the Commission entering the contract.

You’d have to imagine thevEU have had plenty of lawyers look at this again. If they are releasing it, they must be sure they are right.

CIARAN_BOYLE

markodaly wrote: »

Woudnt they be agreements with the UK?

Contract refers to eu competing agreements not az competing agreements.

So the eu doesn't have any contracts with the UK that would compete with this.

It would be more of an issue if the EU bought up the entire supply of glass vials in Europe and gave them to Pfizer or similar that would give Astra Zenaca an out.

ninebeanrows

From a quick glance it looks like an error in the contract ? The paragraph would only make sense if it meant other competing agreements from outside?

However, going by how it is written the EU is in the right, even if it is an error. AZ lawyers should have ensured there was no error here.

Sleety_Rain

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

From a quick glance it looks like an error in the contract ? The paragraph would only make sense if it meant other competing agreements from outside?

However, going by how it is written the EU is in the right, even if it is an error. AZ lawyers should have ensured there was no error here.

It looks like AZ were protecting themselves against the commission's buying power in case of raw materials shortages. Doesn't give them a get out just because they have an agreement with the UK.

Hungary have approved Sinopharm. They're taking an interesting approach to all of this, I'll grant them that.

SheepsClothing

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

From a quick glance it looks like an error in the contract ? The paragraph would only make sense if it meant other competing agreements from outside?

However, going by how it is written the EU is in the right, even if it is an error. AZ lawyers should have ensured there was no error here.

The clause could make sense if you take into account that their could be competition for raw materials between the various vaccine manufacturers. If AZ couldn't fulfill their order due to Pfizer buying up the available medicine vial supplies in order to meet their obligations to the EU, then AZ would be contractually protected.

Marhay70

markodaly wrote: »

Woudnt they be agreements with the UK?

The UK weren't part of the agreement with the EU.