What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

drunkmonkey

We're getting close to the what exactly is happening to pfizer thread, worrying development appearing in Israel, the link isn't proven yet but they have significant concerns about heart problems in men under 30.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-link-between-pfizer-shot-and-heart-problem-in-men-under-30/

Where does this leave us in a month or so if confirmed, astra for people over 40 and pfizer the same.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We're getting close to the what exactly is happening to pfizer thread, worrying development appearing in Israel, the link isn't proven yet but they have significant concerns about heart problems in men under 30.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-link-between-pfizer-shot-and-heart-problem-in-men-under-30/

Where does this leave us in a month or so if confirmed, astra for people over 40 and pfizer the same.

62 from 5 million. With a condition that is not uncommon in younger people and is usually triggered by infectious diseases including Covid

Frank Bullitt

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We're getting close to the what exactly is happening to pfizer thread, worrying development appearing in Israel, the link isn't proven yet but they have significant concerns about heart problems in men under 30.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-link-between-pfizer-shot-and-heart-problem-in-men-under-30/

Where does this leave us in a month or so if confirmed, astra for people over 40 and pfizer the same.

Worth noting that Israel recorded no daily deaths from Covid today. First time in 10 months.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

62 from 5 million. With a condition that is not uncommon in younger people and is usually triggered by infectious diseases including Covid

They said the impression is the number of cases is higher than they would have expected, so it might be common as you said but it seems to be more common than usual.

"There is specific concern regarding the frequency of the occurrence observed in men under 30 in the days immediately after the second shot,” they wrote. “At this stage, according to initial findings that still need to be verified, there is an impression that the number (of cases) is higher than would be expected, especially for those under 30.”

Good news on the 0 deaths from Covid with 42% vaccinated though, it might not take us that long to get there.

murphaph

I haven't seen it posted. Apologies if a duplicate.

Here in Germany a number of the states have removed age restrictions on AZ with the caveat that anyone under 60 needs to consult with a doctor about the risk/benefit for them personally and sign a waiver of indemnity.

AZ is thus now mostly being sent to GPs in those states.

My own state isn't among them yet but I hear it may join them and if it does I'll be trying to get a shot of AZ as for me the risks of Covid I estimate to be higher than the risk from the vaccine.

I would like to see Ireland adopt the same policy. No AZ will go to waste and nobody will be forced to take AZ or go to the back of the queue.

drunkmonkey

murphaph wrote: »

needs to consult with a doctor about the risk/benefit for them personally and sign a waiver of indemnity.

I'll be trying to get a shot of AZ as for me the risks of Covid I estimate to be higher than the risk from the vaccine.

I would like to see Ireland adopt the same policy. No AZ will go to waste and nobody will be forced to take AZ or go to the back of the queue.

I wouldn't sign a waiver when the medium/long term effects are completely unknown, it's impossible to do a risk/benefits analysis without all the data.
Out if interest what do you estimate your risk of ending up in ICU or death is, there seems to be a lot of different opinions on it.

Nothing wrong with Ireland having the same policy, if people want to sign away and get it let them, the back of the queue threat was unnecessary and counter productive, you'll be able to pick and choose what vaccines you want in a couple of months anyway.

Call me Al

Does anyone have info on data re the rate of these clotting disorders AstraZeneca v J&J?

Is one more problematic than the other?

I think I read the rate for J&J is 6 in 7m doses.

drunkmonkey

Call me Al wrote: »

Does anyone have info on data re the rate of these clotting disorders AstraZeneca v J&J?

Is one more problematic than the other?

I think I read the rate for J&J is 6 in 7m doses.

7.9 per million and increasing week on week for AZ, I'd like to know if there's any risk of further clotting down the line, most of the cancelled experts say there is.

volchitsa

murphaph wrote: »

I haven't seen it posted. Apologies if a duplicate.

Here in Germany a number of the states have removed age restrictions on AZ with the caveat that anyone under 60 needs to consult with a doctor about the risk/benefit for them personally and sign a waiver of indemnity.

AZ is thus now mostly being sent to GPs in those states.

My own state isn't among them yet but I hear it may join them and if it does I'll be trying to get a shot of AZ as for me the risks of Covid I estimate to be higher than the risk from the vaccine.

I would like to see Ireland adopt the same policy. No AZ will go to waste and nobody will be forced to take AZ or go to the back of the queue.

Interesting idea but what's the situation for those few people for whom there's actually a problem? Have you waived all your rights to any sort of compensation, or just limited them a bit? I'd be fine with the latter if it meant me getting vaccinated sooner, but I'm not sure I'd be happy to sign something that might leave my dependent children with nothing at all in the event of me being incapacitated (or dead) due a blood clot that we know is one of the risks of the vaccine.

Call me Al

drunkmonkey wrote: »

7.9 per million and increasing week on week for AZ, I'd like to know if there's any risk of further clotting down the line, most of the cancelled experts say there is.

So the stats are indicating that the AstraZeneca risk is multiples of that posed by Johnson and Johnson.

Stark

Call me Al wrote: »

So the stats are indicating that the AstraZeneca risk is multiples of that posed by Johnson and Johnson.

Actual numbers for both are so small though that I wonder if that's just a statistical anomaly.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

7.9 per million and increasing week on week for AZ, I'd like to know if there's any risk of further clotting down the line, most of the cancelled experts say there is.

Surely then you can reference these expert?

In reality it is an out of control immune response to the vaccine that triggers the clotting. It either hope s or it doesn’t.

drunkmonkey

Call me Al wrote: »

So the stats are indicating that the AstraZeneca risk is multiples of that posed by Johnson and Johnson.

It's all on the person, risk changes by health, age, weight etc.
I'm not sure how accurate this is but my risk of death from Covid is 0.0026%, I'm more than twice as likely to get hit by lightning than die from Covid.
Oxford have a calculator here https://www.qcovid.org/Home/AcademicLicence?licencedUrl=/PatientInformation/PatientInformation

The current assumption is that the Risk of a cloth from the J&J is 0.0001875%

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely then you can reference these expert?

In reality it is an out of control immune response to the vaccine that triggers the clotting. It either hope s or it doesn’t.

Plenty of them they're just not allowed, either your agree with the mainstream Media and Government policy or your a conspiracy theorist.

There's no exit for the vaccine, where does it end up? Could it possibly cloth later if something triggers it, we still don't know how long they stay in your body. I think it's only fair to say we don't have all the answers yet.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Plenty of them they're just not allowed, either your agree with the mainstream Media and Government policy or your a conspiracy theorist.

There's no exit for the vaccine, where does it end up? Could it possibly cloth later if something triggers it, we still don't know how long they stay in your body. I think it's only fair to say we don't have all the answers yet.

Things drunkmonkey has absolutely no clue about #15,234

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Things drunkmonkey has absolutely no clue about #15,234

You'll have to explain that one. I see your claiming in a round about way via the simple put down that if a cloth doesn't happen soon after injection it can never happen. Provide your clues, I'd like to see it explained. It would reassure everyone.

Call me Al

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's all on the person, risk changes by health, age, weight etc.
I'm not sure how accurate this is but my risk of death from Covid is 0.0026%, I'm more than twice as likely to get hit by lightning than die from Covid.
Oxford have a calculator here https://www.qcovid.org/Home/AcademicLicence?licencedUrl=/PatientInformation/PatientInformation

The current assumption is that the Risk of a cloth from the J&J is 0.0001875%

I'm not wanting to know about you or any other individual's risk of clotting.

I just want to know how the two vaccines compare to one another wrt these types of clots.
Basically what the data is telling them.

Turtwig

Call me Al wrote: »

I'm not wanting to know about you or any other individual's risk of clotting.

I just want to know how the two vaccines compare to one another wrt these types of clots.
Basically what the data is telling them.

It's too early to tell at this point. The incidence rate for the J&J vaccine has yet to be determined.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You'll have to explain that one. I see your claiming in a round about way via the simple put down that if a cloth doesn't happen soon after injection it can never happen. Provide your clues, I'd like to see it explained. It would reassure everyone.

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210422/scientists-find-how-astrazeneca-vaccine-causes-clots

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210422/scientists-find-how-astrazeneca-vaccine-causes-clots

Nearly never milked a cow, the simple and correct answer is they don't know yet. Your link backs up that assumption.

The overall incidence rate for J&J is lower than AZ, but it's only affecting women under 50. When that's taken into account, the incidence rate for women in that cohort is 7 per million, which is closer to AZ's rate.

Link here containing the figures:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/23/jj-covid-vaccine-cdc-panel-recommends-resuming-use-of-jj-vaccine-.html

Bear in mind, in the US the whole "take what you're offered or get to the back of the queue" issue is irrelevant. They have options there. It's not difficult for someone who wants to avoid J&J to source a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine instead.

Here, I'm not sure what the logic would be in restricting AZ but allowing J&J for all age groups. For women under 50, both vaccines carry a similar level of risk, yet we're likely to be told that we can safely take one and not the other.

I like the waiver idea being used in Germany, give people the option but don't penalise them for their choice. J&J will be an attractive option for many people anyway, given that it's a single shot.

Bass Reeves

Look like the EU is going to put the boot in. They must have good legal opinion

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0426/1212147-eu-vaccine-astrazeneca/

Bass Reeves

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Look like the EU is going to put the boot in. They must have good legal opinion

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0426/1212147-eu-vaccine-astrazeneca/

this will be a fascinating case to watch.

robinph

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Look like the EU is going to put the boot in. They must have good legal opinion

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0426/1212147-eu-vaccine-astrazeneca/

Not sure what they would hope to achieve though, other than ensuring that next time around nobody dares to offer vaccines at cost.

A contract that said the supplier would try their best to produce something that hadn't at that point been produced by anyone, and wasn't clear if the product would work, and the purchasers around the world were throwing money at multiple different suppliers along similar lines hoping that one of them would work but prepared to lose their money if they ended up not working.

Every country was gambling loads of money in the hope that at least one vaccine would work. Not sure anyone has much to complain about when the numbers that were being gambled on didn't quite come up.

Now if they are just arguing that the supply between the EU and UK should have been more evenly distributed then that is a different matter. But complaining about only getting 70m instead of 300m of something that didn't exist when the contracts were signed isn't a great argument in relation to during the covid pandemic. Even if the EU had taken all of the UK supply it wouldn't have made any difference to the EU's lack of those 300m, the vaccines still didn't exist and they would have only got 90m rather than 70m.

Is Sanofi getting sued for having ceased their vaccine development and so not supplying anything? I assume there are other manufacturers as well which gave up earlier on.

robinph

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Your arguments go out window the moment you said “at cost”, explain the difference in price Eu and uk agreed on

Sorry for being too specific with the phrase "at cost" when I should have said "vastly cheaper than anyone else is providing vaccines for and not for the purpose of raking in billions in profit whilst people around the world are dying".

Thought that was a bit too wordy though.

fly_agaric

robinph wrote: »

Not sure what they would hope to achieve though, other than ensuring that next time around nobody dares to offer vaccines at cost.

Ah nothing probably. The contract lawyers of boards say there is no case at all there.

As for "at cost", that worthy promise is not so helpful when so little is supplied in the end. If the EU had relied more heavily on this company and its ability to provide...we'd all be in an even more serious pickle here in the EU!

Not that it is important in the context of the horrific economic damage of this pandemic but the EU (and the US too) gave them alot money (>EUR300m in EU case) up front for the "at cost" vaccines. EU got 1/10 of the vaccines they ordered so far.

robinph wrote: »

Is Sanofi getting sued for having ceased their vaccine development and so not supplying anything? I assume there are other manufacturers as well which gave up earlier on.

Comparison to Sanofi seems unfair as I think the vaccine they were working on had poor trial results.
AZ have an excellent product which was already showing promise when it was ordered by the EU and was (afair) one of the strongest contenders for being the 1st successful Covid-19 vaccine. They just cannot produce it in amounts the EU required which is a different issue.

robinph

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

And what happened to a third of a billion Eu given to AZ

AZ is still to this day continues to over promise and under deliver.

They shouldn’t have been given the contract to manufacture by Jenner institute the only reason AZ and not other companies with history of vaccine making was chosen is because of of the guys worked in AZ, that’s cronyism altogether

Like I said, it was a gamble. Every country that was putting in place contracts for vaccines a year ago and paying out millions to try and get a space at the front of several different queues at the same time was gambling and hoping that at least one of the horses would come in, even if all any of us got was a three legged horse falling backwards over the line we'd have taken it this time last year.

It happens that most of the horses made it, and Astra Zeneca had a bit of a gammy leg but still made it.

Don't think that shooting the horse now is going to make anyone else feel overly great about entering the next race.



Maybe Astra Zeneca was a bad choice of manufacturers, that wouldn't have affected half the things people have been getting wound up about regarding the vaccine though. Would make no difference to any clotting issue, would make no difference to effectiveness against different variants, would make no difference to the efficacy numbers (although the number released last year may have been less confusing at the time, the effectiveness would have been the same).

Just don't really see what the EU want to gain by sueing, other than trying to show they have teeth it's not especially going to gain them anything and far more likely to lose in the long term if they put companies off taking risks during a pandemic.

robinph

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Let me put it into simple terms

You pay a builder to build a house that builder takes your money and only delivers 1/10th of a house compromising of 1 wall and no roof (while your neighbour got full house built by same builder)

Would you just shrug and go “oh well”?

If you have two builders come along and say they can use some new technology that has just been figured out to build those houses, but neither of them knows if the new material will work or not, and they have no idea how long it will take, but we might get lucky and have you one house or other for next year if everything goes well... then next year you have two buildings, but one of them is just the granny annex and the rest of the house is still being worked on.

Do you then knock down the granny annex and storm off in a huff because they painted it the wrong colour, or just accept that it's taking longer than expected and you had asked for this building material that nobody had used before so what did you really expect?

Edit: You also have that the neighbour ordered a semi-detached property and got most of it minus the extension, whilst the EU ordered a 10 story block of flats and...well it turns out that's a bit of a bigger build to complete.

robinph

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

You might have had a point if UK also had 1/10 th of promised deliveries, they didn’t

If the UK had got a tenth of their deliveries and the rest of the supply had gone to the EU, the EU would still not be any better off.

Pete_Cavan

robinph wrote: »

Is Sanofi getting sued for having ceased their vaccine development and so not supplying anything? I assume there are other manufacturers as well which gave up earlier on.

Orders are subject to vaccine approval, if your vaccine doesn't get approved then there is no order.

AZ are bound by the contract which they signed up to, stop the whataboutery on other producers.

Bit cynical

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Look like the EU is going to put the boot in. They must have good legal opinion

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0426/1212147-eu-vaccine-astrazeneca/

This is very much locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Furze99

robinph wrote: »

If you have two builders come along and say they can use some new technology that has just been figured out to build those houses, but neither of them knows if the new material will work or not, and they have no idea how long it will take, but we might get lucky and have you one house or other for next year if everything goes well... then next year you have two buildings, but one of them is just the granny annex and the rest of the house is still being worked on.

To bring your metaphor to it's logical conclusion - you take the gerry half built building and decide that it's only suitable for people in their sixties... well those that don't work in the HSE or have access to contacts in the HSE etc.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

This is very much locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Have to do that to stop any more nags running off!

robinph

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Orders are subject to vaccine approval, if your vaccine doesn't get approved then there is no order.

AZ are bound by the contract which they signed up to, stop the whataboutery on other producers.

Pretty sure that there were loads of payments made by multiple countries to multiple manufacturers, in advance, and not based on any guarantee of actually getting any vaccines at the end of it. Just lots of crossed fingers and hoping for the best.

Yes, Astra Zeneca hasn't supplied what they had said they were going to. But do you get to sue the bloke down the bookies who gives you the next hot tip on a race when that horse doesn't come in? When the money changed hands and claims of deliveries made there wasn't actually anything concrete to be making those claims on, it was all just a load of wishful thinking on the part of everyone.

brickster69

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

You might have had a point if UK also had 1/10 th of promised deliveries, they didn’t

What like this you mean

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-astrazenec-idUKKBN27K2GU

robinph

brickster69 wrote: »

What like this you mean

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-astrazenec-idUKKBN27K2GU

So the UK ordered 100m and they have currently had 25m.
The EU ordered 300m and have had 70m.

Not sure exactly where the unfairness in distribution is there? Looks to be the same rate of delivery each.

astrofool

robinph wrote: »

Pretty sure that there were loads of payments made by multiple countries to multiple manufacturers, in advance, and not based on any guarantee of actually getting any vaccines at the end of it. Just lots of crossed fingers and hoping for the best.

Yes, Astra Zeneca hasn't supplied what they had said they were going to. But do you get to sue the bloke down the bookies who gives you the next hot tip on a race when that horse doesn't come in? When the money changed hands and claims of deliveries made there wasn't actually anything concrete to be making those claims on, it was all just a load of wishful thinking on the part of everyone.

No, but you do get to sue if your contract says that supply quantity will be equal among customers and it turns out that the producer is favouring one customer over all others.

Now, it will come down to definitions of "best effort" vs "more best effort" or whatever is specified in different contracts. It will also be interesting if they are going after equity of delivery or that they made promises to supply at levels that they couldn't stick to. The fact that the EU would only be a few % higher if the vaccine was equitably distributed probably isn't going to factor much or make much difference to legal proceedings.

robinph wrote: »

So the UK ordered 100m and they have currently had 25m.
The EU ordered 300m and have had 70m.

Not sure exactly where the unfairness in distribution is there? Looks to be the same rate of delivery each.

I'd imagine they would be looking at the per capita distributions, not the % of order fulfilled, and again the debate will be what the meaning of best effort means with regard to order volume (if I order 1BN, do I get my 250M ahead of the UK).

Wolf359f

robinph wrote: »

So the UK ordered 100m and they have currently had 25m.
The EU ordered 300m and have had 70m.

Not sure exactly where the unfairness in distribution is there? Looks to be the same rate of delivery each.

The EU most certainly has not received 70m AZ doses.
Not sure where you got that figure from.

Furze99

Furze99 wrote: »

To bring your metaphor to it's logical conclusion - you take the gerry half built building and decide that it's only suitable for people in their sixties... well those that don't work in the HSE or have access to contacts in the HSE etc.

No. Astrazeneca is extremely safe for people over 60 (not 'just' those in their 60s). A half built building isn't safe for anyone.

robinph

Wolf359f wrote: »

The EU most certainly has not received 70m AZ doses.
Not sure where you got that figure from.

Neither am I now. I'm sure someone had quoted 70m from the article linked to earlier but now can't see that now. <shrugs>

70m is given as the number to be received this year.

Even so, with 31m delivered and if the EU then were to have received half of the UK delivery to even the ratios up, the EU is still not really any better off.

robinph

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

That ain’t the point

What is the point then?

That the UK should be doing as badly as the EU to make you feel better?

robinph

astrofool wrote: »

No, but you do get to sue if your contract says that supply quantity will be equal among customers and it turns out that the producer is favouring one customer over all others.

Now, it will come down to definitions of "best effort" vs "more best effort" or whatever is specified in different contracts. It will also be interesting if they are going after equity of delivery or that they made promises to supply at levels that they couldn't stick to. The fact that the EU would only be a few % higher if the vaccine was equitably distributed probably isn't going to factor much or make much difference to legal proceedings.



I'd imagine they would be looking at the per capita distributions, not the % of order fulfilled, and again the debate will be what the meaning of best effort means with regard to order volume (if I order 1BN, do I get my 250M ahead of the UK).

That point may be confounded by the two contracts saying very similar things, but then being applied in legal systems that apparently have a different way of interpreting the wordings. Got lost in what the difference was with the Belgian law and who that benefitted on the way things were interpreted.

The UK ordered a multiple of their adult population, whilst the EU ordered less than their population. So do you take a fair sharing based on the population size, the order numbers, how many other vaccine orders you placed to cover you, how many multiples of the population you'd ordered?

robinph

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

If the production issues are genuine all the customers would have been impacted equally and proportionally, this didn’t happen

I suspect EU know something we don’t, it ain’t just plain incompetence but something worse maybe even criminal, hence these shisters are being pursued.

Did you miss the bit about the UK supply being less than had been initially claimed would be delivered?

Dyr

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

If the production issues are genuine all the customers would have been impacted equally and proportionally, this didn’t happen

I suspect EU know something we don’t, it ain’t just plain incompetence but something worse maybe even criminal, hence these shisters are being pursued.

Dey tuk awr jabs!!

Or not :

"The EU's shortage of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines in recent months came down to simply not having enough serum — and even a significant amount sent from the U.S. couldn't make up the shortfall.

While a Belgian subcontractor making the serum or "drug substance," was fulfilling its contract with AstraZeneca, another plant in the Netherlands wasn't producing enough to be included in the company’s application for approval to European regulators at the end of December, according to EU documents seen by POLITICO and the Belgian magazine Knack."

https://www.politico.eu/article/astrazeneca-vaccine-shortfall-production-woes-documents/


I see a French Vaccine producer has got a pain in the hole with dealing with the EU and have walked away from securing a deal with them.

robinph

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Did you provide sources for those figures?

.

brickster69 wrote: »

What like this you mean

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-astrazenec-idUKKBN27K2GU

robinph

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

NOVEMBER 4, 20206:08 PM UPDATED 6 MONTHS AGO

Try harder

You'd have to explain what number are you after?

The UK has ordered 100m doses of Astra Zeneca, they have stuck about 25m into peoples arms.

The EU ordered 300m doses and has received 30m, not sure how many they have stuck in arms.

brickster69

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

NOVEMBER 4, 20206:08 PM UPDATED 6 MONTHS AGO

Try harder

Yep, the UK had a 30 mln order in to be delivered in September 2020 a couple of weeks after the EU had spent 3 months haggling.That was months before approval was granted. I wonder when they were contracted and ordered, probably about April / May you would have to imagine.

robinph

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

25% is a larger number than 10%

Yes, well done.

And you'd notice that I said I'd got the number mixed up between the article that was quoting supplied and to be supplied numbers just a few posts ago.

robinph wrote: »

Neither am I now. I'm sure someone had quoted 70m from the article linked to earlier but now can't see that now. <shrugs>

70m is given as the number to be received this year.

Even so, with 31m delivered and if the EU then were to have received half of the UK delivery to even the ratios up, the EU is still not really any better off.

But what would the EU currently be doing if they had those extra 10m doses which have gone into arms in the UK? The EU would still only be on 12% of their order, and probably most of those sat in a fridge not being used.

brickster69

AZ delivery schedule. 14 times " best reasonable efforts ". Estimated delivery based on approval which was 29/1/2021. Again " earliest possible " = best case scenario

https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1362780886379483137

brickster69

brickster69 wrote: »

AZ delivery schedule. 14 times " best reasonable efforts ". Estimated delivery based on approval which was 29/1/2021. Again " earliest possible " = best case scenario

https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1362780886379483137

Remind me how much earlier AZ sought approval in the UK while still not submitting for approval in the EU?