Astrazeneca covid vaccine clotting anomaly

[studiot]

53 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

One good point to be discussed here is how long have other significantly successful vaccines taken to be  "developed"  before being rolled out onto the public  ??  ??

Why or in what way is it a point worth discussing ?

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

38 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Tells us what things???>>??__>%%^^

Things : One first  thing is make at least a little bit clearer whether the "politix-involved" theory discussed here is [ to what extent ] acceptable . . . 

 

Why or in what way is it a point worth discussing ? ( Studiot) 

This is also a reply to studiot.

 

 

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

"The most effort in the shortest time IN HISTORY!!!" ...as Mr Trump might say.  

Even Trump wouldn't say such a thing . . .  . 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Prof Reza Sanaye

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Even Trump wouldn't say such a thing . . .  . 

Then you are not familiar with his penchant for hyperbole.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Things : One first  thing is make at least a little bit clearer whether the "politix-involved" theory discussed here is [ to what extent ] acceptable . . . 

 

How does knowing how long it took to develop this vaccine vs others tell us if politics is involved in the pause in the rollout?

If this vaccine development cycle is longer than past development cycles, does that mean political decisions on vaccines are more acceptable, or less acceptable? 

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

How does knowing how long it took to develop this vaccine vs others tell us if politics is involved in the pause in the rollout?

If this vaccine development cycle is longer than past development cycles, does that mean political decisions on vaccines are more acceptable, or less acceptable? 

As a matter of fact , Dear Zapatos , it is the other way around. The controversy is over the issue of this vaccine having BEEN PRODUCED SO SO QUICKLY AS COMPARED WITH OTHERS . . . .. 

 

It MAY make it much less acceptable .  ..

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

No I am not. I suspect, based upon what I have read about Covid vaccine development and vaccine development in general, that the total number of man hours, the total number of test subjects and the total amount of money spent is similar for both. What differs is the the shorter time frame into which that effort was compressed.

That is basically true. The development itself did not start from zero but was prioritized so it was faster because more folks worked on it.  Phase III are smaller and faster than some other vaccine trials but it benefitted from an actual bad situation: the virus was spreading rapidly and had in many countries a high prevalence. So while other vaccines might have taken years to identify enough infected folks to estimate efficacy, in the pandemic the numbers were reached much faster. 

 

1 minute ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

As a matter of fact , Dear Zapatos , it is the other way around. The controversy is over the issue of this vaccine having BEEN PRODUCED SO SO QUICKLY AS COMPARED WITH OTHERS . . . .. 

Production is not an issue as it is regulated and controlled the same way as others. It is fast because more companies work together to make it happen.

If you are talking about development and testing, Area54 basically addressed that. If you are surprised that things happen faster because more folks and more money was dedicated to the project then I am not sure what to tell you. Would you feel better if they waited until you think it took enough time?

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

As a matter of fact , Dear Zapatos , it is the other way around. The controversy is over the issue of this vaccine having BEEN PRODUCED SO SO QUICKLY AS COMPARED WITH OTHERS . . . .. 

 

It MAY make it much less acceptable .  ..

WHY does the short development cycle make it less acceptable for political decisions surrounding the use of the Astrazeneca vaccine?

[studiot]

A radical view might be that it is amazing how long a time the covid vaccine took, not how short a time.

Think back to the spring of 2020.

Political leaders in the UK, America and Europe were all promising (hoping for) a vaccine ' in use by the autumn and before the 20/21 winter'.

It was only the scientists who were saying "we would be lucky to have a working vaccine by 2021"

 

Now we have the press and media whipping up antagonism to the Asta vaccine, using any excuse generated. Specifically those by the same crank lobbies that seem to oppose any modern medicine.
They have too much media exposure. The media loves a controversy. Congratulatory reports are few and far between, over too quickly and soon forgotton in the welter of bad news.

 

[iNow]

These comments around time to development also completely ignore the decade plus of work that had already been done on mRNA vaccination approaches before the pandemic was declared 

[CharonY]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

These comments around time to development also completely ignore the decade plus of work that had already been done on mRNA vaccination approaches before the pandemic was declared 

And for the other established vaccine methods, too. Moreover, there is about a decade of research on coronavirus vaccines, but most have not moved into trials (as interest declined rather rapidly).

In fact the pure vaccine development is not that long. A critical factor is usually identifying the best candidate, which often is done in pre-clinical studies.  That part has been skipped for the most part and folks went into the safety trials (Phase I) pretty soon. Another part that could be considered reduced is the range of different dosages tested in a trial. Often you will have different cohorts with higher or lower concentrations to figure out which gives the best response. Most trials for COVID-19 vaccines had (IIRC) one or two regimens. The risk here is usually that if one is unlucky, the dosages may actually not elicit an immune response. At this part, we kind of got lucky as most vaccines showed very good responses. Typically about 40% of all Phase I and 70% of Phase II trials fail in drug discovery, so again, luck plays a big role here.

It could have been possible, for example that phase III showed low efficacy and folks would have had to push another candidate through the pipeline. By then we probably have so many infections that phase III could have done within a few weeks, though....

[Danijel Gorupec]

But when companies started making delivery deals, they somehow overestimated their capabilities by a large margin. Where was all those great experience and knowledge then?

I am not buying it - they knowingly overstated their delivery capabilities only to get contracts. Now people feel betrayed and then any irrational behavior is not unexpected.

I honestly believe that in continental Europe people feel betrayed by AstraZeneca (being it for righteous reason or not). Media sense this and cherry-pick the stories to publish. I think this is all that there is, but AstraZeneca is not without its sin.

 

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

when companies started making delivery deals, they somehow overestimated their capabilities by a large margin.

Unless you’ve seen the contracts, then you’re really in no position to make such a declaration. 

1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

they knowingly overstated their delivery capabilities only to get contracts.

I feel a bit weird being put in a position of defending big pharma, but... do you have any evidence whatsoever that this actually happened?

1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

AstraZeneca is not without its sin.

Says the man throwing stones 

[MigL]

If anmyone doesn't want their Astra-Zeneca, send them to Canada.
Our only hope for large scale vaccination is if J Biden is right, saying that all Americans who want a vaccine will have it by the end of May; then ( maybe ) Moderna and Pfizer will send us some.

[CharonY]

From what I have heard Canada is technically still on track, though the track has been running until September. I guess when the times draws closer we can see how far we are off. The US has been accelerating instead, which sounds like a great idea.

[iNow]

US will also begin rebuilding international goodwill by donating extra vaccines to other countries 

[geordief]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

US will also begin rebuilding international goodwill by donating extra vaccines to other countries 

No harm in that but it is clearly in its (and everyone's) interest that enough vaccines are available in all parts of the world ,and as quickly as possible.

 

Pay them if necessary.

[iNow]

Agree completely. Win-win

[geordief]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

Agree completely. Win-win

The man from WHO  (some Irish sounding  guy ; is he the head?,the chair?)was just on the TV saying vaccination passports for international travel were a bad idea as they reinforced the inequality between countries via a vis access to vaccines in the first place.

Edited March 17, 2021 by geordief

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

US will also begin rebuilding international goodwill by donating extra vaccines to other countries 

Is this some new initiative that was announced or are you just suggesting it would be a good idea?

 

[Danijel Gorupec]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Unless you’ve seen the contracts, then you’re really in no position to make such a declaration. 

 

I don't understand this part. The quantity and schedule of vaccine shots promised by politicians was clearly much more optimistic than actually realized - are you saying that politicians lied about what they agreed with companies (and somehow intimidated companies not to deny such lies)? Or are you saying that politicians somehow managed to extort such unrealistic promises from sales departments of those companies?

Maybe, but imo the simpler explanation is that the promises politicians obtained from companies were already inflated. (European politicians might be too dumb and incapable to intimidate and extort.)

(BTW, I am just curious - did you ever have to deal with sales department in your company? Maybe you were a sales person yourself? In companies where I worked, I always had to remind the sales personnel that what they are promising to customers is not very realistic. That is why I have this strong hunch that also sales people in pharmaceutical companies were clearly warned by their engineers that the production schedules announced publicly are not realistic.)

[swansont]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

Is this some new initiative that was announced or are you just suggesting it would be a good idea?

No formal initiative yet, other than donating money for manufacturing the vaccine, but

“If we have a surplus, we’re going to share it with the rest of the world,” Mr. Biden said this week, adding, “We’re going to start off making sure Americans are taken care of first, but we’re then going to try and help the rest of the world.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/12/us/politics/covid-19-vaccine-global-shortage.html

4 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

I don't understand this part. The quantity and schedule of vaccine shots promised by politicians was clearly much more optimistic than actually realized - are you saying that politicians lied about what they agreed with companies (and somehow intimidated companies not to deny such lies)? Or are you saying that politicians somehow managed to extort such unrealistic promises from sales departments of those companies?

Which schedules, in particular? The ones I'm familiar with are for the US, citing a number of doses to be delivered by the end of March. And since it's not yet the end of March, we have no way of saying they have failed. One can extrapolate from earlier numbers, but since the companies are ramping up production, a linear extrapolation will not be accurate. i.e. providing 2 million doses a week in February does not mean next week's delivery will be 2 million doses.

Quote

I am not buying it - they knowingly overstated their delivery capabilities only to get contracts. Now people feel betrayed and then any irrational behavior is not unexpected.

As with iNow, I'd like to know how you know this. How you know they overstated their ability to ramp up production, which could run into any number of problems (e.g. was any slated to take place in Texas or neighboring areas, which had serious weather-related problems recently? How could one anticipate this when the contracts were signed? There are multiple scenarios similar to that which could be in play. Supply constraints. QC problems.)

The US just hit 100 million doses administered, last week. Those doses are coming from somewhere.

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The US just hit 100 million doses administered, last week. Those doses are coming from somewhere.

That sounds a lot, citation required please.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

One can extrapolate from earlier numbers, but since the companies are ramping up production, a linear extrapolation will not be accurate. i.e. providing 2 million doses a week in February does not mean next week's delivery will be 2 million doses.

How is this number consistent with the fact we are just in week 10/11 of vaccinations ?

 

By comparison the UK should just exceed 25 million vaccinations today.

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by studiot

[Danijel Gorupec]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Which schedules, in particular? The ones I'm familiar with are for the US, citing a number of doses to be delivered by the end of March. And since it's not yet the end of March, we have no way of saying they have failed. One can extrapolate from earlier numbers, but since the companies are ramping up production, a linear extrapolation will not be accurate. i.e. providing 2 million doses a week in February does not mean next week's delivery will be 2 million doses.

As with iNow, I'd like to know how you know this. How you know they overstated their ability to ramp up production, which could run into any number of problems (e.g. was any slated to take place in Texas or neighboring areas, which had serious weather-related problems recently? How could one anticipate this when the contracts were signed? There are multiple scenarios similar to that which could be in play. Supply constraints. QC problems.)

The US just hit 100 million doses administered, last week. Those doses are coming from somewhere.

 

I am struggling to find good media articles in English that mention official statements given by AstraZeneca that AstraZeneca will not be able to keep up with their delivery promises to EU... here is one that I just googled: https://www.sortiraparis.com/news/coronavirus/articles/241757-astrazeneca-vaccine-new-shipping-delays-in-the-eu/lang/en

"...this reduction could reach 60% of doses secured in the first quarter of the year, for a total of 31 million doses instead of the 80 million doses expected in the EU..."

Here is another article (but without numbers): https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/astrazeneca-says-initial-eu-delivery-volumes-of-covid-vaccine-to-fall-short.html

 

Apparently, they experienced low yields and therefore delays. How should I understand this:

a) Something really unexpected happen, something that almost never happens during vaccine production?

b) This industry is such that they never have much control over how the production will go - this is a known limitation, yet they are jolly fellows happy to make very optimistic promises?

c) They are delivering to others instead (say USA, Israel...) because the others are paying more?

d) Something else?

 

How do I know they intentionally overstated their delivery capabilities (to grab contracts)? If I would know, I would sue. I said "I am not buying it", which is a typical intro into a sentence that you are strongly suspecting...  But even if not true, the important is what people in EU believe (and I think they believe that companies are selling elsewhere despite promises to EU, forcing EU into a dire situation). This belief is the reason, I speculate, why it was so easy to 'demonize' AstraZeneca vaccine with EU population (especially after frau Merkel refused to get the AstraZeneca vaccine shot).

 

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

am struggling to find good media articles in English that mention official statements given by AstraZeneca that AstraZeneca will not be able to keep up with their delivery promises to EU... here is one that I just googled:

For an optomistic estimate, read a guarantee; in politic speak...

 

[studiot]

35 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

I am struggling to find good media articles in English that mention official statements given by AstraZeneca that AstraZeneca will not be able to keep up with their delivery promises to EU... here is one that I just googled: https://www.sortiraparis.com/news/coronavirus/articles/241757-astrazeneca-vaccine-new-shipping-delays-in-the-eu/lang/en

"...this reduction could reach 60% of doses secured in the first quarter of the year, for a total of 31 million doses instead of the 80 million doses expected in the EU..."

Here is another article (but without numbers): https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/astrazeneca-says-initial-eu-delivery-volumes-of-covid-vaccine-to-fall-short.html

 

Apparently, they experienced low yields and therefore delays. How should I understand this:

a) Something really unexpected happen, something that almost never happens during vaccine production?

b) This industry is such that they never have much control over how the production will go - this is a known limitation, yet they are jolly fellows happy to make very optimistic promises?

c) They are delivering to others instead (say USA, Israel...) because the others are paying more?

d) Something else?

 

How do I know they intentionally overstated their delivery capabilities (to grab contracts)? If I would know, I would sue. I said "I am not buying it", which is a typical intro into a sentence that you are strongly suspecting...  But even if not true, the important is what people in EU believe (and I think they believe that companies are selling elsewhere despite promises to EU, forcing EU into a dire situation). This belief is the reason, I speculate, why it was so easy to 'demonize' AstraZeneca vaccine with EU population (especially after frau Merkel refused to get the AstraZeneca vaccine shot).

 

My own reading of the situation is somewhat different.

I think that the EU leadership is manufacturing a dispute where none should exist to try to divert attention from their own abysmal failings.

The UK placed firm orders at least three months before the end of 2020 and announced 'intent to buy orders three months before that'.

The EU still had not placed firm orders at the beginning of January 2021, and indeed could not do so because it has still not licenced the vaccine.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by studiot