UKC

I didn’t expect to see this posted here, but what are the thoughts off the EU politicising and weaponising the Astra Zeneca vaccine. The EU,s own medics have said the concerns are groundless, but this hasn’t stopped Macron and Merkel creating vaccine anxiety. This will result in EU residents needlessly dying. Following on from threatening the Good Friday agreement the commission now intend to block exports of the vaccine in a clear breach of the sale contracts. All this to cover up their own sloth and gross inefficiencies. Who knows how many have died because of this. UK procurement was overseen by a small dynamic team from the private sector and taken away from the dept of health to avoid the same outcome as the EU.

"The German health ministry said this week it had administered only 15% of the AstraZeneca shots it has available"

Not really clear to me why they're starting a pissing contest over how much we are or aren't sending their way when Germany and France have used so little of what's been delivered so far. That point didn't seem to have made the press over here but if it's just going to be left on a shelf they won't come out looking very good.

From dw.com dated 20 Feb:

"...only 87,000 of the 736,800 AstraZeneca vaccine doses delivered to date have been used, according to Germany's disease agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI)."

That's a WTF from me

https://m.dw.com/en/covid-astrazeneca-vaccine-remains-unpopular-in-germany/...

The thing with this issue is that is only being weaponised in the UK press. The day Spain temporarily suspended the use of the Oxford vaccine for example (yesterday or the day before?) the news item in the (spanish) paper i was reading was 3 pages down and no more than a side note.

Besides that, whenever a particular country decided to suspend its use (as it's down to each country, not the EU) they were clear that there's no indication the clots were caused by the vaccine and that they were stopping using that particular batch as a simple precautionary measure until they confirm that it is the case there's no correlation. That is standard procedure for any new medicine, and they clearly referred to batches.

As for the export controls, well if the US can do it and the UK can do it then so does the EU. Out of the 3 the EU has so far exported more than 40  million vaccines (nearly 10 million of those to the UK). The US and the UK, a big fat 0

Edit: And those 40 million vaccines are the ones exported after January the 30th when the controls were introduced, so they know how many they are. Probably a few tens of millions before that date

Far better than exporting doses, the UK has undertaken technology transfer with the Serum Institute of India which is aiming for a production of 100 million doses a month.  As far as I know this is being done on a not-for-profit basis.

That’s going to have far more beneficial effect beyond our borders than exporting our total production could possibly have.

Did I mention the bit where the UK also designed the vaccine; one that doesn’t have complex cold chain requirements and so is far more suitable for developing nations than then much more expensive “synthetic vesicles” ones?

The UK? No... Astra-Zeneca entered into a contract with the Serum Institute for them to manufacture the vaccine, which will be sold at cost as a requirement from the creators of the vaccine.

They were initially going to donate the rights to anyone willing to manufacture it, but the Gates Foundation, which funded a large chunk of the research, convinced them it was better to get a manufacturer to produce it with the condition it was sold iitially at cost.

The only hand the UK had on this was to veto the contract Oxford had with it's longstanding vaccine manufacturer partner because they would not agree to supply the UK exclusvely

Upscaling production? Sure it does

If you did you are wrong.

The vaccine was designed by the Jenner Istitute, the Oxford Vaccine Group, and Advent (Italian company) with the development largely funded internationally and on the back of EU grants.

"The UK" didnl' design anything, but even if it did, well, "The Germany" designed the Pfizer vaccine, and "The Italy" had a hand designing the AZ vaccine, so by that yardstick it's ok if the EU bans the export of both, no?

The UK? No... Astra-Zeneca entered into a contract with the Serum Institute for them to manufacture the vaccine, largely paid for by CEPI and GAVI, which will be sold at cost as a requirement from the creators of the vaccine.

They were initially going to donate the rights to anyone willing to manufacture it, but the Gates Foundation, which funded a large chunk of the research, convinced them it was better to get a manufacturer to produce it with the condition it was sold initially at cost.

The only hand the UK had on this was to veto the contract Oxford had with it's longstanding vaccine manufacturer partner because they would not agree to supply the UK exclusvely

Upscaling production? Sure it does

If you did you are wrong.

The vaccine was designed by the Jenner Istitute, the Oxford Vaccine Group, and Advent (Italian company) with the development largely funded internationally and on the back of EU grants.

"The UK" didn't design anything, but even if it did, well, "The Germany" designed the Pfizer vaccine, and "The Italy" had a hand designing the AZ vaccine, so by that yardstick it's ok if the EU bans the export of both, no?

Edit: Here's a list of 'funders' for the Jenner Institute. You'll note it isn't the UK exclusively paying for the research.

https://www.jenner.ac.uk/about/funders-partners

Couldn't find a list for the OVG, but i did find that the very first funding they received from the UK towards the covid vaccine was some time after May 18, which is the date it was announced, and also the date the contract with AZ was signed. https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/funding-and-manufacturing-boost-for-uk-vaccin...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/funding-and-manufacturing-boost-for-uk-v...

I hoped it was clear “The UK” is a placeholder being a pretty generic term for different institutions and companies with strong British links. 

As a country we are certainly contributing significantly to global vaccination.  As I’ve said before the AZ vaccine is built on international foundations - as is almost everything of note in the sciences and medicine these days.   AZ itself has roots abroad as well as in the UK.  The supply chain is highly international.

None of which weakens the pride I have that “the UK” has had such a positive contribution to helping people beyond its borders.  

As part of a very European team in my company it is sad to see colleagues in the rest of Europe so disheartened at the speed of vaccination, and also see the rising cases in France, Germany, Italy, etc and knowing the consequences to come. It is really very strange how badly the roll out is going.

It's a Brexiteers dream though, a chance to justify all the terrible consequences of Brexit with this hopefully short lived chaos.

I don't disagree with you there, in fact i agree with all of that. Maybe i took the meaning of your previous post the wrong way or you took mine as demeaning the contributions of those working on it from the UK, which wasn't my intention.

As I understand it the UK contributed substantial funding to development of the AZ vaccine and it's production lines in the UK and abroad. I also believe this was on the condition that it be sold at cost and allowed to be produced internationally without royalties but I don't have a good source for that.

To my mind, that is absolutely a UK success story.

And i was going to pull out from this thread before it descends into chaos but i thought i'd share something i found curious.

Opened up what is the biggest Spanish newspaper for a read and as normal, a small side story in the second page down about the 'EU threat to vaccine exports' and some articles on covid.

Then i thought to click for the english version for a look, and the top story, with big headlines and big size photo for attention at the forefront is a story about the suspension of the use of the AZ vaccine.

Kind of makes the situation obvious

(This links will obviously only show that when clicked today)

Spanish edition https://elpais.com/

English edition https://english.elpais.com/

You are Dominic Cummings, and I claim my £5...

I am amazed (but not totally suprised) that this loads of crap gets so many likes. Tells you a lot about how far in the reality distortion field this country seems to be in.

Take your union jack tinted spectacles off a minute

It *might* be the wrong decision (I am not qualified to judge) but independence of bodies like Paul-Ehrlich-Institut is taken seriously in Germany

Did it occur to you just once that a country pausing vaccinations in response to a possible concern may not be choosing to deliberately kill their citizens but just to investigate further e.g. problematic batches or common medical conditions.

It is also unlikely that non-EU countries like Norway and Iceland have suspended use of a vaccine in solidarity with the EU against the UK. I don't want to second guess medical regulators, but I suspect their remit is health and safety not responding to UK media.

Perhaps.  It’s far from clear that they’re applying the precautionary principle at a fair and equal level to the AstroZeneca/Oxford and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines however.  This NYT piece presents a case that it’s largely a political domino effect triggered from Germany - with a supporting quote from the relevant medical licensing authority in Italy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/world/europe/europe-astrazeneca-vaccine-...

What a load of crap. Believe it or not EU governments aren’t that interested in upsetting UK tabloid press weird fragile pride in their “Oxford” vaccine. 

German suspension was triggered  by three extra reports of a rare cerebral blood-clotting disorder making a total of six or seven, many times more than the normal rate expected. 

IMHO it is simply a difference of culture, European health authorities have a slightly different philosophy, they look at bit less at the risk / reward balance and a bit more at trust / transparency. Both philosophies have their merit.

Meanwhile AZ vaccines isn’t even approved at all  in the US, nobody claims this is a political decision. EU suspends for a few days to investigate potential issue and immediately it must be  because they want to kill their own citizens... get real.

The only place where the AZ vaccine is ultra-politicised is the UK, and that is only because the UK government and the tabloid press milked its success to death to cover up an otherwise disastrous record on other fronts.

much to agree with there .

I think the 'political' element referred to by the italian regulator could well be attempts by EU governments to promote the AZ vaccine and other vaccines saftey - showing they are being squeaky clean and checking any possible problems.

Based on the uptake of the AZ vaccine so far I'm not sure its working, but its a reasonable approach.

You say “UK tabloid press” - did you follow Mr Lopez’ links that showed a main Spanish newspaper giving massive coverage to the AstroZeneca/Oxford vaccine in their English language front pages but not their Spanish language one?

The EU haven’t suspended it.  Individual nations have, starting with Germany.

Rather than suspending it, the EU in the form of the EMA has released a statement saying that the vaccine should continue to be used.  As have the WHO.

I hope to eventually see an analysis of if the various vaccines were treated fairly and equally.

I think it would be useful to this thread if people posting listened to this recent HardTalk programme with Adar Poonawalla, the CEO of the Serum Institute.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3cszc3b

Interesting to hear his views on vaccine nationalism Indian style and how a bit more global cooperation would benefit everyone and speed up vaccinating the whole world.

The recent noise from the EU about potentially limiting vaccine exports is ridiculous given that they can't seem to use up the doses they do have (admittedly they need to have some floating stock at all times for second dozes but the % of unused doses seems to be way about what's needed given that there's some level of supply coming through at all times).

I'm very anti-Brexit but have to say that an objective assessment of how the EU has handled the roll out doesn't portray the EU or most governments within the EU in a good light. The manufacturing contracts, doubting the effectiveness in the over 65s, doubting the effectiveness of spreading out the doses and apparent inability to use up the relatively few doses they do have (not clear if that's due to vaccine hesitancy or poor logistics or both). Of course some of this is due to the EU machine and some is due to individual governments. I do wonder if it would have been quite different if the UK had still been in the room and managed to talk sense into the EU bureaucracy.

It's interesting that the EU has exported 10m doses to the UK (presumably Pfizer) and 30m elsewhere. One observation is that even without this our vaccination drive will have been significantly ahead of the EU anyway. Another observation is that at least some EU countries won't have put those extra doses to good use anyway.

To the OP's original point, I actually think that a large part of the reason that the roll out has gone so well here is that the private sector has been kept out of it for the most part, in terms of planning it and administering it. It's been a massive effort by various government departments, the NHS including the 'grass roots' (GPs) and the Army logistics experts.

Yes. Which is evidence to my point that this is mostly a big political obsession in the UK, not so much in Europe.

Sure thing but you are nitpicking and missing the point.

There is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that they were not, and no reason whatsoever to think so.

To insinuate that highly reputable health agencies across Europe would basically kill their own citizens in a systematic campaign to discredit this particular  vaccine just to take a stab at the UK government’s fragile smugness is totally delusional.

AZ’s  may have been under more scrutiny in European media  initially because of strange interim phase 3 clinical trial data, the low headline efficacy rate (compared to Pfizer), then the confusion over dosing, then the bizarre attempt to combine the efficacy rates for the two dosing schedules, then the junk interim efficacy data for over-65s. All this sent it into a bit of a PR vicious circle.

It is understandable that they would question the wisdom of continuing to export millions of doses to countries like the UK or the US who are way ahead or f other countries in terms of vaccination, and do not even reciprocate by effectively banning exports through the backdoor.

...and it would be even more understandable if they actually managed to use up what they do have!

No, not really, they have some stock but it’s still far less than what they need

The OP didn’t even seem to have checked which countries have suspended the AZ vaccine. Many of them are not even in Europe, let alone the EU.

Or is the 'vendetta' now world-wide?

What are you talking about? The UK hasn't put in any vaccine export controls. 

The UK doesn't have export controls but it has a contract with AZ that the UK gets vaccine manufactured at its factory in the UK first.   The contract arguably conflicts with other contracts that AZ has signed with the EU which the EU reads as implying that it will have access to vaccine from AZ plants in the UK if there are production problems in AZ EU plants.  The EU has paid AZ several hundred million euro for vaccine and it is receiving hardly any while the UK is getting a ton of the stuff.

From the EU's point of view there isn't a hell of a lot of difference between an export control and an exclusivity contract with the manufacturer in the UK which makes Covid vaccine.  The outcome is the EU is exporting 10 million doses of Pfizer vaccine to the UK and the UK is exporting SFA AZ vaccine to the EU.  The commission needs to defend the interests of EU citizens and unless there's a roughly equivalent flow of vaccine in both directions the obvious step is to stop exporting Pfizer vaccine to the UK and replace the AZ that isn't being supplied with Pfizer. 

I have no opinion on who's weaponising what, but for balance it has been one of the top  political story on Euronews (Greek) edition for days now.

I don't think they are, they even spent several hundred million Euro buying the stuff.

Who was it insisted on calling it the Oxford vaccine any more, and even suggested there should be union jacks on the packages.  It should have been obvious that when the UK government associate themselves with a product it is going to damage that product in the EU market - they just spent 3 years trying to p*ss the EU off.

In the case of Germany there's also the fact that people will wait and pay a bit more for higher quality products: AZ is last generation technology with more side effects and less effectiveness.  German consumers are going to want the superior product i,e, Pfizer.  

The whole thing is somewhat moot anyway because AZ are struggling to make the stuff.  NHS England aren't getting the supplies they were expected and are cutting back their program, the EU is only getting a small fraction of what they ordered.   It looks to me that AZ do not have their process in control at their EU facility since it's clearly not shipping product at anything like its expected capacity.   You wonder whether it isn't producing or it is producing and most of the output is getting rejected by QA.   If I was a regulator I'd take a theory that problems which may be associated with a batch of AZ more seriously if I knew there were manufacturing issues at the plant which made it.

Meanwhile Pfizer has qualified their vaccine for storage at higher temperatures.  It looks to me like the commercial battle is shifting in Pfizer's favour.

Obviously it's being politicized.  Mr Lopez and the village idiot who thinks that the louder he  shouts the truer his ramblings are (I think you know who I mean) are being naiive or deliberately obtuse. It this was a movie, then it's be "Desperately seeking scapegoat" with Ursula von de Leyen in the lead role.

Re effectiveness Tom, I thought the NHS Scotland data suggested AZ had higher effectiveness than Pfizer?

citation_needed

"By the fourth week after receiving the initial dose, the Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines were shown to reduce the risk of hospitalisation from Covid-19 by up to 85 per cent and 94 per cent, respectively."

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19107740.coronavirus-scotland-vaccinati...

There’s a summary of the latest research findings published yesterday in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w

If you want a link that isn't a news item the pre-print is here

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3789264

You do seem quite determined to talk this particular vaccine down. Any ideas as to why that might be? I might be able to do a better reply later but in short I think the Ox-Az jab has suffered reputationally from initially doing more thorough monitoring of trial participants, then from becoming a political football.

I don't think the EU has much to do with that though. Mostly they just seem to want more of it. Just some politicians and maybe a few scientists in various, mostly European, countries have a poor understanding of probability and the sort of noise that would be expected when looking at the distribution of ultra rare events. Maybe it also suffers from being 'British' at a time when, due to the Glorious Brexit anything 'British' is thought of as a bit rubbish/ composed of mostly spin & management waffle ('strong and stable', 'world beating' and all that). I guess you can blame the UK govt for that but not Ox/ Az or their vaccine

You maybe want to do a bit more research into the role of the Life Sciences Office ( and the development of an industrial stratey linking govt, private sector, universities, NHS  etc since 2014).

That little known office within what was the Business Innovation  and Skills Department was the key to getting the Uk vaccine rollout going.

Without that we would still have been on the starting blocks 6 months later.

There are various fascinating articles in the Economist explaining its impact for example.

Not really. On a global scale as Vallance has pointed out you need lots of manufacturers and lots of vaccines. he more the merrier.

Besides the global battle is at the moment being led  by the Chinese vaccines , where you now have to have a Chinese vaccine before they will give you a Chinese visa for example.Its being used to gain leverage in plenty of countries.Pfizer in that respect is an als oran.

I found out the other day, to my great surprise, that UoO/AZ vaccine received $1.2bn of funding from the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed. I do not know whether that was only for testing and manufacturing for US release or what not, but I certainly wouldn't have expected it.

USA, Uk and Israel had a deliberate policy of throwing money at the situation. Overpay now at whatever the price was the mantra.Pretty simple and effective.

They paid and bought 3 months after the uk. But paid no consideration to production and supply chains.

Germany isn't prepared to wait. In December it broke ranks and ordered 30m doses independently. 

Your dislike of the uk is clouding your judgement. 

I am sorry but you have got to be blinkered in the extreme to think this is not politicised in Europe right now, even Europe's politicians are saying it is...

I get a sense of that from Tom, but the vaccine jingoism in the UK has been getting a bit silly as well, so I can see what he is reacting to.

The reality is the UK did get some orders in first, but is only a couple of months ahead of the EU, and in terms of infection rate we started in a much worse position anyway.

Now the UK needs to start second jabs we will have to put first doses on hold, as there's nothing in place to double vaccine supplies. It seems there was a late plan to take 10m doses of AZ from India to continue to fast rollout, but that's fallen through and anyway, by the logic our government has been using it's hardly justified diverting those doses here. Similarly for our extra Morderna order (10m), placed in January, we can hardly expect the EU to allow that to be exported, again by the logic our our government has been using.

The vaccine success story was a good moral booster when we needed it but in the log run it looks like the UK and EU will be in a similar place by the end of the summer.

Some orders is a bit of an understatement, the orders and quantites were huge including for various vaccines that have not been succesfully developed and  delivered. They deliberately overordered on the basis that some were going to fail.

They haven't a plan to take any vaccines off India, the syrum of whatever medium the vaccine goes in is manufactured there, but they'll only be able to produce half, the rest in a month. India does also have some actual vaccine manufacturing of its own too, not just a component. 

The uk and eu are miles apart. The eu doesn't even have over 70s or 75s vaccinated yet. 

Not really because the only one that counts in terms of getting priority is the AZ that's made here. The government and AZ hasn't exported any of that on the basis of the early order, but that logic won't work on the EU manufactured vaccine we are also dependent on. AZ can only make 2m a week and they are needed for second dose.

This isn't conjecture, it's happening, I won't be getting my first dose till May at the earliest

I'm not arguing the UK task force hasn't done a great job, it has, but some of the vaccine jingoism in the UK is getting silly now. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-britain-india-idUSKCN2AV...

Note the date of that report.

The UK is still on course to meet the government's commitment of everyone having been offered a jab by end of July. Until this setback we would have completed first vaccinations well ahead of schedule.

We also have two other vaccines on the brink of being approved. One of them I think, is a one shot vaccine which would of course, considerably shorten the programme provided sufficient doses can be supplied in time.

I stand correct. 

But the eu won't be in the same place as the uk by summer. Even if the eu had 500m doses in its hands it won't catch up, because vaccine scepticism has been fed by the likes of Merkel and Macron, it will cost lives. 

I said by the end of summer and I think that is realistic

There is something in that but it might just apply to the AZ vaccine. Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson and Johnson will all be manufacture in the EU, so they'll probably be more receptive to that.

Without getting into the why and wheres of political willy waving does anyone have definitive figures of whether the Pfizer vaccine has been given to anyone who went on to suffer from blood clots?

As a simple fool I am, I would have thought before everyone starts shouting anti British or anti Europe comments a simple comparison of vaccine/ blood clot would give an indication as to whether there is any evidence behind the speculation. Or is that too simple.

Ah that's OK, if thousands die everyday between now and then, just because the eu treated vaccine ordering like click & collect, not even considering production, supply chains etc.. 

Pfizer clots per million doses are the same if not higher than AZ. What should be considered are clots per million who aren't vaccinated in those age groups. 

Yeah, we are on a relatively good schedule, and that's great. The big impact will be on hospital admissions, and that is clearly needed for the exhausted NHS.

Johnson and Johnson will be EU manufactured so I doubt we'll get priority on that. Novovax will manufactured in Teeside so we should get priority on that. We'll get that in the second half of the year, so could have a big impact over winter as I believe it has good efficiency on the SA variant.

Again, I'm not arguing that the UK task force hasn't done a good job..... just an appeal against getting too carried away with the jingoism based on this. Dislikes for a measured and factual post prove that some are!

It doesn't have definitive figures, but I found this article quite helpful to contextualise the decision to temporarily halt AZ vaccinations: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/it-s-very-special-picture-why-vacci...

The main argument seems to be that not every bloodclot is the same, and it explains why the type of clotting seen in the AZ cases are a possible cause for concern. It does also restate (towards the end) the benefits of continuing to vaccinate. All in all I found it a very helpful and balanced article.

Yeah they made mistakes and some will die because of it. The UK government made catastrophic mistakes too last Autumn, tens of thousand died because of it. The press who are banging on about the EUs slow vaccine procurement tend to give the UK government an easy time on it's lethal mistakes. I'd rather have a balanced view than demonise one set of politician and praise others, just on the basis of my nationality.

Ok thanks. On that basis there does appear to be a bit of favouritism for the European vaccine which seems somewhat odd when Sweden are linked to the AstroZenica jab also I think. 

Thanks for that. 

Astra was swedish, zeneca british, prior merger and floating. Sweden's stance is query the batch, not the vaccine in entirety. 

I don't think anyone will be forgiving or forgetting boris and Cummings. It's not like a normal political cluster that disappears, folk are dead and everyone will know someone. 

But the same applies to the eu, they waved their flag and actively encouraged everyone to join their programme, then they let them down. Parts of France, Italy, Germany... aren't in great shape just now. 

I think there are very few Governments that can shower themselves in roses over this.  Possibly only New Zealand?  Australia haven't done badly at keeping it down, but have also stranded many of their residents outside the country for months, which isn't OK either.

Moderna on track for UK delivery, so I might get my jab in May

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-moderna-idUSK...

I wonder if we'll stick to Moderna's 4 week recommended gap between jabs?

Priority is a very poor word, delivery  is based on contractual obligations. This is of course unless a country wants to steam roll over existing contracts or already had in place something like the Defence Production Act as in the USA.

No, the UK policy is 12 weeks regardless of vaccine.

Moderna is almost identical to Pfizer, other than that it's easier to store.

Very much agree.  Praise where its due, and holding to account where it's due.

Make's sense.

Anyone up for slagging off the Indian government now?

Covid vaccine: UK supply hit by India delivery delay
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56438629

Many of the countries that have stopped the rollout of AZ aren’t even in the EU or not even in Europe. Switzerland or the US aren’t even approving it.

Sorry but I am quite comfortable in my apparently minority view that it is unlikely that countries around the world are killing their own citizens in a worldwide vendetta against UK vaccine smugness,  and that the UKC self-declared  “experts” don’t really know better than vaccine panels around the world.

In the real world we are now in, delivery is based on how fast the manufacturer can make it, and if they can get away with exporting any. None of them are manufacturing as much as they like so the 'contractual obligations' are  subject to what is possible, and the result is more down to politics than any 'fist come first served' clause that may or may not be in a contract. US and UK aren't exporting any, only several EU counties (and Switzerland)*. I strongly suspect we will get EU manufactured vaccines at the same rate EU countries do, at best, despite ordering them first.  I might be wrong, we'll find out in the next few months.

* And of course Russia and China, but I was commenting on what we are or might be using.

I doubt it on the basis that as a minimum the EU will want to be seen to be following contracts as otherwise every contract in the EU is not worth the paper its written on.And for all the political pressure within the EU, Merkel and others get that particular wider point.Steamrolling or priority over existing contracts is in nobodys long term interest.

As you say both the Uk and EU countries should be level pegging witin a few months. But of course people need to overcome their hesitancy which perhaps is a more concerning issue than the ongoing  fraught process of manufacturing,.

Boris is due to visit India at the end of April. I wonder if he'll present himself as the saviour and fly the delayed 5 million vaccines back in the plane with him? Perhaps with an extra million for good measure.

I think what you are struggling to comprehend is that other European governments (and the EU) are just as capable of being incapable as our government. Just because Macron is swarve and wears a sharp suit does not mean he hasnt made some Boris-level blunders recently.

I dont see much smugness btw, only desperation and relief and I would much rather have everyone, esp those suffering badly in Europe on the same page - I have plenty of colleagues in Europe not happy

Last time I checked the New York Times wasn't a British tabloid.

Yes, contacts in Norway, France, Germany etc. are all very keen to get vaccinated. Lots saying they'll take the AZ vaccine if no one else wants it. I was surprised that there seemed to be no support at all for their government's position.

What about the EMA, MHRA and the WHO? You know, the ones that don't suit your opinion. How do they stack up?

Anyway, it's largely moot; see posts 2 and 3 on this thread.

Slightly off topic but this article gives some insight into the kinds of issues encountered in vaccine manufacture, particularly the AZ one. As someone with little knowledge of the process I found it useful.

https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/what-is-causing-astrazeneca-s-vacc...

I don't think anyone apart from the OP has implied anything like that. Wintertree aka Mr data UKC didn't.

What it looks like to me is that one or two countries made the decision to suspend Ox/ Az based on some very dubious data and now politicians in other countries feel they need to follow suit to head off antivax hysteria. The EU / UK row over exports is really a separate issue.

The link posted by moondancer gives a lot of context. The German vaccines body believe they are being cautious because they found seven cases of unusual blood clotting out of a population of 1.6 million when one would normally expect one case in such a population. The problem is, with numbers of 'events' this low, that still boils down to zero evidence. In real life random distributions don't look evenly spread at this sort of level. Say you 'expect' one of 'something' in every sub-set of 1 million. It would still not be unusual to find lots of sub-sets containing zero 'somethings' and some with seven or eight or some other low number. That's even before you consider the high COVID rate in Germany at the moment and the fact that COVID is known to cause blood clotting disorders.

If there were no consequences to the suspension this type of caution might be reasonable but given people die from covid in huge numbers and there is now a great deal of evidence that the vaccine is effective it just looks insane.

While the 'EU conspiracy to smear the British vaccine' idea is clearly a load of rubbish (hell, the EMA still recommend using it!) I think the UK government's current reputation for spouting meaningless drivel and empty soundbites may have an effect on global receptiveness to their (and by association the MRHA's and AstraZeneca's) attempts to defend it. Similarly the WHO has a credibility problem at the moment so their defence of the vaccine won't have helped either.

I think the problem is many European leaders aren't in line with EMA or the WHO, they are just thinking of their fragile political position in their own country. 

Tom applies a correction factor depending on the level of contamination with anything to do with the concept of the UK or, God forbid, English involvement.

You started with saying that, and then go on to to imply it.

That is because their angle isn’t purely one of risk/reward benefit, it is also one of transparency and trust. 

Even though they know full well that the cases are extremely rare; and that the risk/reward balance of the vaccine is still massively positive, they also insist that the public must know what the risks are so that they can make their own decision, even if those risks are small. 

You may disagree with this logic and that is fine, but to claim that they are “insane” or politically motivated is just total rubbish 

Where did you get that they don’t suit my opinion ? I have not stated my opinion, but mine is that they vaccine rollout shouldn’t be stopped, so I agree with them.

Your comment is one big giant strawman.

However, just because other vaccine panels are following a different approach doesn’t mean they are wrong, and it doesn’t mean I should assume they are politically motivated.

So ?

Where have I ever said otherwise ? What a rubbish strawman.

To quote the NYT article I linked up-thread:

“There is an emotional situation that is the fallout from this case that started in Germany,” Giorgio Palù, the president of Italy’s Medicines Agency said on Tuesday. He said: “There is no danger. There is no correlation at the epidemiological level.”

“It was a political choice,” Nicola Magrini, the director [of Italy's Medicines Agency], told La Repubblica newspaper on Monday, saying that Italy suspended the administration of the AstraZeneca vaccine because other European countries had decided to do so.

To be clear, are you asserting that the NYT made this up, or that the president and the director for the national agency are talking "total rubbish"?

The point is that these decisions are coming sometimes from politicians and not from scientists; ergo they are political decisions not medical/scientific ones.

Stating this is in no way endorsing the view that they were motivated by a political will to upset the vaccination-jingoistic aspects of government in the UK.   There is a vast gulf between those two statements.  However, it is possible to recognise that actions have consequences, and that regardless of the motivations for some actions, they may carry serious consequences.  We aren't in the position of weighing up two bad choices, but current events will do nobody any favours at this point.  If the EMA's report follows their Tuesday statement, we're going to see this issue put to bed with one more piece of misinformation specifically pegged to the AZ vaccine.

As I have said before, I hope to eventually see a detailed look taken at the data for the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstroZeneca/Oxford vaccines to see if they have been treated fairly and equally. For now I'm eagerly awaiting the EMA report.

Ultimately the risk, transparency and trust threshold you set is a political choice.
 

You can disagree with where they are, sure, but to automatically jump to the conclusion that many highly respected vaccine panels around the world are politicising their decision specifically on the AZ vaccine out of pettiness is just absolute unsubstantiated rubbish.

That reply doesn’t appear to have any relevance to anything I said in my post.  

Edit:  I see your reply to this post. To spare the thread from an endless cycle of banality, I'm going to leave to you argue in a vacuum.  I believe my posts have been very clear.  For example, in giving a quote from a national medicines agency specifically stating that for their country, it was a political decision.

It has more relevance to it than yours had to mine, which seemed to be mostly banalities aimed at sidestepping the point I made.

There are multiple clauses in the contract between the EU and AZ which show they did consider this.

The threshold where you start investigating needs to be a lot lower than the threshold for statistical confidence.   Most of the time, it will be a wild goose chase but the alternative of ignoring the situation until there are enough deaths to be statistically confident there is a problem is far worse.

There were three indicators: deaths/reports of clots, association with a single batch and the background of a new production line with teething problems.   That's enough to be cautious and pause for a few days while you look into it.

So what ? You are pointing out that one guy who disagreed with the decision says it is political without any evidence. Great. There are plenty of other equally qualified people who say it isn’t.

You are just cherry picking what you want to hear and then made a rubbish argument to authority.

I don’t see how it addresses my point that there isn’t any evidence whatsoever that it is politicised in the way it is suggested in the OP, and that I don’t see what kind of political motivation Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, the US, or many other countries for that matter would have.

That's a very specific criterion 'by the fourth week after the initial dose' and 'risk of hospitalisation'.   When you have two products based on different technologies you will usually be able to construct a criterion which makes one better than the other.

Effectiveness would normally be defined based on which vaccine gives you the best chance of not catching Covid after you get the manufacturer recommended doses.

Clearly weren't worth the paper they were written on, as the eu commissioner felt the need to admit they had made mistakes and failed. She wouldn't have done that lightly or without cause. 

I'd argue effectiveness against future mutations and timescale before booster jabs might be needed are equally important. It's way too early to declare any vaccine better than another. 

In reply :

The government has done a first-rate propaganda job in any case, judging by almost all the replies on this thread. Most people on here are blaming the EU because national governments (both EU and non EU) decided to suspend the vaccine while cases of blood-clotting were being investigated. How does that make sense? The EMA has always maintained that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks. 

That the media and government have managed to use this story to generate pro-UK/anti-EU sentiment in one of the most pro-EU communities in the country is a remarkable - and worrying - achievement 

Or that the EU has messed up so badly that even a heavily pro-EU community such as UKC is criticising them.

It is a very pro EU community. 

That’s quite the claim to make.  

If I scored posters in the thread I think less than 20% would be criticising “the EU” as opposed to questioning and in some cases - not all - criticising certain European governments.

Edit: being generous as what I interpret of criticism of the EU I come up with less than 5 posters. 

Yep. It is strange isn't it that the US still hasn't approved AZ but that doesn't seem to shock anybody in the UK.
Meanwhile a few European countries (many of them not even in the EU) suspend authorisation just to investigate some potential issues, and suddenly it's because they want to kill their citizens in order to get back at the UK.

The reality distortion field is strong on this one.

It's was Macron and others who first started making the whole vaccine programme nationalist in December. Although you could argue last spring, as it was pressure from leaders like him that led the eu to favouring EU pharma companies, such as one in France which has now given up trying to produce a vaccine. The uk didn't really follow nationalism in procurement, it followed the science and backed it up with hard cash.  

You won't get more pro eu than Germany and Merkel, even they bought their own vaccine independently in December. She might not bad mouth the eu directly, but actions speak louder than words. 

I was also factoring in likers and dislikers

What should also be considered is the age/health condition of the people who have developed blood clots. This is very relevant but seems to have been ignored by a lot of people

Well they have plenty just like Israel and U.K.  thanks to Trumps WarpSpeed and Bidens 100 m in a 100 days.  

Ok, so what about Switzerland ? Or all the other countries that haven’t approved it for that matter.

I note that many EU countries are now resuming vaccination with the Astra vaccine.

Looks like those who jumped the gun and accused the vaccine panels of making politicised decision have been proven utterly wrong (again)
 

Well, that was why I referred to the widely publicised and discussed on here Scottish results rather than those from England!

id be not at all surprised if the difference between the two vaccines in the Scottish data was not statistically significant - the bottom line is both are very very good and we* have been bloody lucky.
 

*we - humans generally, population of the UK in particular given the parlours situation in December.

Where I'm vaccinating the much reported shortage of AZ is kicking in already. Two sessions next week have been cancelled. On the plus side we are getting a delivery of Pfizer next weekend. It's earmarked for second dose for vulnerable elderly patients. All this an organisational nightmare for the local vaccine leads. A lot of people with there shoulder to the wheel making this happen.

One big reason why the decision is political is the vastly different vaccine confidence. 
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00368-6

For various reasons, vaccine confidence is much lower in France, Germany and Spain than in the U.K. 

Macron is probably partly to blame for this, due to his earlier pronouncements, but it does mean that they now need to appear more circumspect. It’s hard to be gung ho when over half your population don’t trust the vaccine. 

Indeed; Dr.S made a similar point up thread.  One interpretation is that the national leaderships are backed in to a corner where they had no good options once this story broke. 

I’m still surprised at just how much attitudes differ across Western Europe.  

Sounds to me like the EU bureaucracy should have concluded more advantageous contracts earlier. The cynic in me thinks that they are trying to deflect from their incompetence in the contract negotiations. I think what should have happened is the EU teaming up with the UK to conclude mutually advantageous contracts but that was never going to happen as there's too much animosity on both sides. So the UK did its own thing and it did it sooner and better. It's one of the few things this government has done well on Covid.

You mean replace the AZ which isn't being used with Pfizer which won't be used

The Office for Life Sciences is part of the DHSC and DBEIS, so it's part of the civil service as far as I can tell. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-life-sciences/about

I actually wonder if they should significantly extend the timescale for second doses and prioritise getting first dozes as a way of getting to a herd immunity quicker, even if it's not quite as effective. I'm not at all qualified to judge this but I suspect this is something which has been given some thought and dismissed, at least for now. 

I doubt it. On average, people here have been very willing to get vaccinated - for example, 95% of all over 65s, which is very impressive. There are well documented issues with deprived and/or BAME communities being more hesitant but even there the vaccination rates have generally been above 60% so far. Of course the take up could reduce in younger groups but equally once people see more of their friends and family get the jab they would be more likely to sign up as well. Whereas in places like France there seems to be a significantly higher level of vaccine hesitancy. Nor have the logistics worked as well given there seem to be a lot of unused doses in some countries. So I doubt they will catch up by the end of the summer even if the supply improves.

This is something we shouldn't lose sight of and I think there's still a chance it will be before the end of July. It's an incredible effort. 3 months ago I though it would take the rest of the year.

Given that the OP has been a "marmite" post and has consistently had balanced likes and dislikes, I still don't see how you could - as you did - reasonably draw the conclusion that most people on this thread are blaming the EU.

From what I can tell, more people have pointed out that the EU as embodied by the EMA support the vaccine, than have blamed the EU.

I think more credit should go to personally to Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific Advisor, for the success of Vaccine Task Force.  As his previous job was chief scientist of GSK, it's reasonable to assume that he is both well plugged into the biotech sector, and very well aware of the manufacturing issues that would need to be unblocked to get production going as fast as possible.  It was clearly absolutely the right call to put a biotech venture capitalist in charge - it needed a VC mindset, spreading risk across half a dozen different approaches, and emphasising speed to market, rather than a procurement mindset of trying to beat the suppliers down on price.

I thought that Economist article was a little bit too keen to argue that the vaccine programme was a marvellous vindication of the government's life sciences strategy.  I think a more balanced appraisal of that would take into account the disasters around public health, social care, and the slowness to ramp up testing capacity.

As far as Germany is concerned, I've seen the argument made by serious scholars that there is a very high degree of residual distrust of medical biotechnology arising from the way some of the medical profession acted between 1933 and 1945.  A more high-flown argument is that they are all Kantian deontologists who are much less comfortable with the kind of consequentialist reasoning about cost-benefit analyses than is second nature in the way NHS and NICE operate.

If I'm to be completely honest, Wintertree, I didn't do a statistical analysis of the posts, likes and dislikes throughout the entire thread and so my use of the word 'most' may not accurately reflect the proportion of people who think the EU is somehow responsible for suspending the vaccine.

However, you should be more concerned about the fact that a group of Norwegian medical researchers have concluded that there is indeed a causal relationship between the AZ vaccine and the development of blood clots in relatively young people. This will no doubt further impact people's confidence in it. Perhaps the EU will be sending their excess doses back and we can start vaccinating the over-40s with them. 

Jolly good, I am glad that you can recognise when you've made an outlandish claim that has no actual support in the thread.  I recall that you've been a stickler for accuracy in the past, and it's important to hold oneself to the standards one applies to others.  Because it seems you've read the thread with a pre-conceived idea that it just doesn't support.

I'm aware of a singular newspaper report; I haven't seen any scientific details.  

Given the similarity of antigens and efficacies of all the currently licensed vaccines, and the proposed mechanism, if - if - this effect is real, I would not expect it to be confined to the AZ vaccine.   The antibodies produced by the different vaccines should be broadly similar.  Of course, infection by the actual virus will also produce these antigens.  (I'm discounting antigens to the carrier virus for Oxford/AZ as that has been used before).

Further, given the proposed mechanisms and the number of younger people vaccinated for various different reasons in the UK, it is incongruent that we have not seen a much larger number of such reported cases to date here.

EU or not EU, most people in this thread, included you and the OP have supported the ridiculous idea that the various vaccine panels behind the AZ suspension made politicised decisions.

The argument was already completely busted from the onset for obvious reasons, but it is now comprehensively buried given the recent lifting of suspensions.

All that happened is that there was a suspicion of an issue, so they paused to investigate and understand the risk, then resumed.

Unfortunately it seems that generating outrage at Johnny Foreigner for the mere suspicion that they may be biased against the Great British Vaccine is a pretty good tactic to deflect from everything else.

It's not often I have to google two words in a row!

That's an interesting take on Germany; it's notable that Japan has a lot of hesitancy as well.

I supported it with a newspaper article from a broadsheet that included quotes from not one but two people at one of this vaccine panels stating that the decision was not "scientific" but "emotional" and "political".

You continue to ignore the comments from a growing number of posters that "political" is a far more nuanced and wide ranging concept than "anti-British"; and you argue against anyone and everyone on the thread as if they mean the later, regardless of what is written.  It's a poor caricature of an argument.

Ridiculous!

The effects of the suspension will never be buried, but will contribute to the vaccine hesitancy in various European nations that is likely to see them unable to ever achieve the threshold needed for herd immunity without significant NPIs remaining.  We could also try and convert the 3-day delay of administration of doses in to deaths from the virus; given the bounds on any potential effect from the vaccine and the progression of the pandemic in Europe, the result is pretty stark.

Exactly this. There are cultural differences here which people fail to appreciate.

lets hope its a good tactic for encouraging patriotic uptake of the vaccine to really grind Johnny EU's nose into the dust....

The politicking may be a public health benefit to the UK - if there is much cut through to the european demos then it seems to be a negative thus far.

According to the researchers it's not the presence of antibodies per se that is the problem, but the intensity of the immune response. I'm no expert but I wouldn't be surprised if this varied between people and was also dependent on the type of vaccine.

OMG, an article, and TWO people ! Wow !

A theory now utterly disproved by the quick lifting of suspension following review of the evidence.
 

I guess those two people would need to explain to us what kind of political motivation Norway or Iceland, amongst others, had in doing the same.

Maybe if you were less blinkered you would not fall for the simplistic explanation that it must be some political grievances.

This line of argumentation is completely flawed with hindsight bias, but you knew that.

President and director of a national medicines agency commenting on their nation’s suspension.  Do you have any other grounds to write them off other than that there aren’t many people in charge of an agency?  But I’ll give you credit where credit is due - unlike the last time you wrote them off you managed to count them correctly this time and aren’t claiming it’s one person.

That’s very presumptive of you.  I’m not blinkered in that I’ve expressed my surprise at these differences several times over the last few months.  I obviously don’t understand them well at all but recognise those existence and recognise that the hesitancy in parts of Europe gives politicians difficult choices.

No; because the numbers were known at the time of the suspensions and the same case was made then - explicitly by some, and implicitly by everywhere that did not suspend.  There’s a thread in “the pub” you may of may not want to read; other people made the same case before it was hindsight.  The efficacy of the vaccine is well known.  The prevalence and lethality of the virus is well known.  The upper bound on any effects was calculable.  None of that needed hindsight.

Whether or not it was political to suspend, it’s good that they’ve decided to resume.

As to whether it really causes blood clots, here’s an interesting question. Would the roll out be stopped if that were the case based on an incidence rate of something like 1 in 500,000? I’d still opt for the vaccine with those odds...

It was never so much about the numbers of the usual thrombotic events, it was about the tiny number of super rare types of thrombotic events and ultimately, public trust and transparency.

Their ethic stance is that the public must be clearly informed of the risks, and such risks investigated, even if they are small. You could argue that it isn’t particularly pragmatic, and that a more risk/reward approach that is less burdened by ethical considerations is better, and that would be  a fine argument to make.

I think to suggest a risk/reward approach is not burdened by ethical considerations is a wee bit daft, do they not teach John Stuart Mill in the Lysee?

Antibodies are an immune response... 

Nobody suggested that.

Fair points. 

I don't think anyone is claiming that the overall clots per million doses number for AZ is bad.

They were reacting to multiple reports of clots/deaths in a relatively short time period in EU countries which were using the same batch of vaccine.    They have to consider the possibility of a production problem in AZ's EU plant.

I know, that's why I put 'per se'. I'm not that much of a non-expert! 

I was responding to your suggestion that because "the antibodies produced by the different vaccines should be broadly similar" then any blood clotting response should occur with all vaccines. But while the antibodies might be similar, the quantity produced by the body after vaccination might vary. 

I'm sort of inclined to accept what you say here is correct, or at least feasible. Can you expand on why it's the case?

In practice I think these governments are making the decisions they are partly because they want to avoid the risk of being seen to be unethical or taking unnecessary risks and partly because it helps them to deflect some blame for the slow rollout. AZ/Oxford does get a harder time than BioNTech, whether this is because it was invented in the UK rather than Germany, or because upholding trust in it is seen to be more important after all the miscommunications a couple of months back about efficacy that caused a lack of trist, I don't know. Either way, in hindsight it looks like the wrong decision because the surveys I have seen from France show incredibly low levels of trust (20%) in the AZ vaccine. Unless this changes quickly, which I suppose is possible if they get the comms just right. From my perspective the problem seems to be, the EMA headline statement at the end of their short investigation didn't really look any different to the one they made when they began it: something like we recommend using the AZ vaccine, there is no evidence of increased risk of clotting, but we'll investigate/continue to investigate anyway. I doubt that will really turn the dial with public trust?

Out of interest do you think most residents in France or Germany would trust the EMA more, less or no different than their own medical organisations?

Trust in France was hugely damaged by a blood poisoning scandal in the 1980s where people were infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C via transfusions. Government officials were convicted for continuing to use unscreened blood despite knowing about the risk. A couple even did prison time.

Latest thing is Matt Hancock saying they have to retest 1.7 million doses of AZ but not saying why.

It's all a bit of a coincidence and indicative of a process not in control and quality problems.   

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/18/boris-johnson-stresses-covid-...

From all I remember the U.K. had exactly the same issue , just no convictions. A reflection  of different legal systems. 

Probably happens on more occasions than we realise.  

There have been plenty of far more detailed articles on those points.  That particular one was highlighting the benefit of a strong and coordinated industrial strategy which has produced an excellent result. 

If you look at antibody titres and vaccine efficacies, AZ is not stand-out.  Clearly individual response differs and if this is a low probability response at one end of the bell curve, then following a precautionary principle given the similar published titres and efficacies with other vaccines, it would seem wise to assume that it applies to other vaccines and the virus.

If it’s a batch issue, none of that applies.

I'm all in favour of strong and coordinated industrial strategies, but I don't think the strategy we had was the right one for the situation we faced, and the success we've seen on vaccines was more a result of well-executed improvisation by the GCSA than the culmination of careful preparation.  I think we should be pleased the vaccine programme went so well and thank Patrick Vallance for that, but we shouldn't let that success blind us to the many things that went wrong and left us with >100,000 dead.

You can think of two different goals for a "life sciences strategy" - one is to support the pharma industry as a sector producing high value products for export, the other is to support the kinds of innovation you need to keep your population healthy and to prepare for emergencies like the one we're going through.  The "life sciences strategy" concentrated on the first goal - too much, in my opinion.  That means it was about making very expensive drugs for cancers and rare diseases, for sale largely in the USA, where for various reasons drug prices are very high.  As a very prominent pharma industry sell-side analyst told me a few years ago, the UK life sciences strategy was essentially a bet on the US healthcare system remaining unreformed.

What was neglected in all this was the business of actually manufacturing medicines, developing diagnostics, public health, making the most of medical data, and the social care sector, and those are all areas where our shortcomings have hampered the response to the pandemic.  There had been a shift over the last couple of years to think more about manufacturing, hence the Vaccines Manufacturing Innovation Centre, though this was not ready in time for this crisis, and the creation of supply chains for the OxAZ vaccine involved rapidly ramping up capacity in a couple of very small contract manufacturers by the expedient of throwing lots of money at them.  The UK's ability in the NHS to run big, well-powered clinical trials was useful too, hence the Recovery trial was a big contribution.  But I think a bit of reflection on what went wrong is in order, rather than rushing to conclude that the whole thing is a complete vindication of the last decade of government policy, as some of those articles seem to be concluding. 

What I imply doesn't resemble the outlandish strawman you presented. Neither did any of the comments Wintertree made before you pounced on him.

Actually I agree with all of that. They should absolutely investigate, they should absolutely tell people what the situation is. The part that seems 'insane' to me is the decision to suspend using the jab while they do this, given the current situation and the numbers we are talking about.

As for a 'politically motivated' element I suspect, is that the suspensions are influenced by deference to antivax sentiment, not any attempt to snub Britain. I fully accept that the suspensions are an attempt to build trust, but they seem more likely to have had the opposite effect.

Your argument was clearly that they suspended as an emotional, knee jerk response to antivax histeria, a ridiculous argument which you just repeated again.

My response to you is that in fact when you look at what they have said, they had a very sensible logic for doing so based on their objectives. You may not agree with the latter and that is fine, I don’t necessarily do either, but it doesn’t mean they are action out of emotion or response to popular pressure.

It is insane if the only consideration they take into account is saving a maximum of lives. 
If that was the only consideration then you’d have mandatory, forced vaccination for everyone.

But there are other ethical consideration, one or them is to not roll out a vaccine if there are suspicion of a potentially problem which isn’t  yet  sufficiently investigated or understood for people to be able to make a risk assessment for themselves. For historical/cultural reasons many continental vaccine bodies will be a bit more stringent on ethics and deontology than their anglo-saxon equivalent, which traditionally take a more pragmatic view.

This short and very readable report from PHE published on 17 March gives real world data on the effectiveness of the vaccine roll out

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

The initial summary states;

“Analysis of routine testing data continues to show a vaccine effect against symptomatic COVID- 19 from either vaccine in those aged 70 year and over, for whom the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a single dose reaches ~ 60%.

This analysis includes additional weeks' of data which gives us increased confidence in the levels of protection the vaccines are offering. 

SIREN continues to show high protection against any COVID-19 infection in health care workers with no decline in protection after a single dose beyond 56 days (which is the length of time people have been studied).

An additional effect against hospitalisation continues to be seen when linking pillar 2 testing data linked to emergency admissions. As before, we find that among those who develop symptomatic infection, risk of hospitalisation is reduced by 35 to 45% after one dose of either vaccine. Combined with the reduced risk of becoming a case, this is consistent with a vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation which is similar to previously reported value of 80%.

Data continue to show encouraging effects from a single dose of the Pfizer vaccination on risk of mortality in symptomatic cases over 80 who have been vaccinated, where the risk of death is reduced by 54%. Combined with the reduced risk of becoming a case, this is consistent with a vaccine effectiveness against mortality which is similar to previously reported value of 85%.”

All very encouraging but it’s clear that there are still significant risks after one dose of vaccine.

Agree with you 100 %. 

But  at least there was a focus , unlike other industrial sectors which U.K. governments do not know what to do with( steel). In the life sciences case they got away with it by the skin of their teeth so to speak. God knows what would have happened if Pfizer’s acquisition of AZ had gone ahead a couple of years ago. 

Yes, that is what I think. I don't think it is ridiculous to to see humans in decision making positions as fallible. Even if they are smart or (God forbid!) German.

Insane was probably a poor choice of word. Illogical, daft, misguided etc might have been better. I was trying to write quickly on my break.

I may get dislikes for this, but I would support this.

I appreciate that there are cultural differences here and that is likely why I have a hard time wrapping my head around their decisions. Oddly, considering my positions stated above, I consider myself primarily deontologically driven. On a recent thread by Jon Stewart I was the only poster to attack utilitarianism for its potential for disregarding human rights. The reason my positions on vaccination are seemingly at odds with this is I regard inviolable human rights as being things which are central to people's wellbeing. The right to not have a vaccine seems as arbitrary to me as the 'right to bear arms'.

You are sidestepping with banalities. Of course humans are fallible but this is different from saying the decision was politicised and emotional.

On the balance of probability, which do you think is the most likely to be « «politicised » and « emotional » ?

The UKC self-declared armchair « experts » in vaccination, or a large number of very reputable vaccine panels from several very different countries ?

Is there a study citation for this?

TBH I'm not in favor of comparing them because they are all bloody good and we should all just get whatever we are offered. I just had pfizer, I'd have had any.

But it's almost impossible to get meaningful data between trials because of the different strains of the virus and populations being studied. All that matters is they are all far better than we were targeting and very safe.

Hi Iain , pre-print linked later in the thread - in essence it looks like both give very high levels of protection, AZ had a higher mean efficacy but the CI's overlapped a fair bit despite the very large number of people involved - this is field data rather than an RTC of course and so lots of potential co-founders.

Pretty obviously if Pfizer owned both technologies the Oxford vaccine would have been dropped and they'd have spent the money to make more of the good stuff instead.  So we'd be getting better jags.

You just chosen to ignore the EMA, MHRA and WHO again? Why's that? Oh yes, I remember. Don't suit your agenda.

Did you read that paper on Scottish vaccination outcomes Tom?

Or it could be indicative of very high quality standards?

I don't think you've understood Alyson30's point ! She's comparing the mindset of a bunch of internet forum users with scientific panels and wondering who would be more likely to make politically-motivated or emotional decisions. Scientific panels can disagree with each other on strategy even though they are all using rational methodology to examine the same data. Internet forums are an intellectual, emotional and egotistical free-for-all!

What is it that you have against AZ? All the main vaccines are highly effective. The main advantages of AZ are that it can be stored in a normal fridge and it's being made at cost, whereas Pfizer needs to be superchilled and costs several times more. The cost isn't a big deal for the UK but it is for less well off countries. The fact that a simple fridge is sufficient is a game changer though - it means it can be rolled out more easily and quickly, even in the UK (how many GP surgeries have superfreezers) and certainly in less well off countries.

FTFY

Is it?  Is it not rather more likely that Oxford would have found a different production partner?  You don’t seem to have considered the full ramifications of this hypothetical.

People are getting all different sorts of jabs.  All off them are a massive step up from getting covid without having had a jab, and which is “better” is basically impossible to answer IMO.  All currently licensed in the UK are more than good enough, and I would happily take any of them.  

That has changed actually. Seems they were being cautious and the stability tests they have done since shows it can be stored in a normal freezer for a month and in a fridge for a week, so hopefully that's a problem solved for the countries lacking the logistics. They are just waiting now on the relevant medical authorities from each country to aprove the change and it'll be changed all around

You are right and that should help, though still a bit more of a faff than AZ.

Tom was hypothesizing that Pfizer would own the technology. Being a cynic, I imagine they would either drop it or jack up the price to be the same as their current offering. So he may well be right, in that hypothetical scenario. However, as you point out, it's not a fair comparison because AZ don't own the technology anyway and there is no way that Pfizer could own it.

The revised conditions were for two weeks (not a month) in a normal freezer (-25°C to -15°C) and the time in a fridge remains at five days (not a week).

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-b...

 https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/pfizer-vaccine-rollout-might-get-a-...

The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is phenomenally clever (Moderna likewise), and as a platform IMO it has some clear advantages, but it also has drawbacks - it has a very specific supply chain and it seems like getting a manufacturing plant up to spec is much harder than for a conventional, biologically grown vaccine (although I'm jumping to some massive assumptions here so could be spouting weapons grade armchair expert nonsense.)  Combined with the cold supply chain requirements I think that the AstroZeneca/Oxford, Sputnik and Sinovac vaccines are going to be much more important to the developing world.   The Novovax vaccine is an interesting one, a very different synthetic technology to the others, no extreme cold chain requirements and I think probably a simpler and more scalable supply chain.  It's being made in the UK by FUJIFILM Diosynth on Teeside; there have been trials in the UK which have just been unblinded and it's now being submitted for approval [1].  

[1] https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/immunology-and-vaccines/no...

That's quite an indulgence in alternative history. Even with the Oxford vaccine demand is extremely high so it's obvious Pfizer are making as much as they can, and I doubt raising funds to make more is a problem, it will be facilities currently capable of doing it.

I don't think a vaccine monopoly would be a good thing, from a socio-economic view it would be foolish to rely on one company, and from a scientific point of view it would be foolish to rely on one technology.

You are right about the 2 weeks, i remembered wrong that there was a 30 day in there, which it is for temporary storage in the container it gets shipped in http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/pfizerbiontech_say_their_covid-19_vaccine...

Thanks, just found it. 

All my family back in Scotland and England got AZ, I got pfizer, my wife has had both moderna doses. Interesting, I know early on they were hoping for pfizer as they had heard that was better but realized it was better to just to get any vaccine ASAP. 

That's really good news either way as both are very effective.

Definitely. And it's why they are still racing to develop further vaccines out. The more out the better. As much as anything the more lines of supply you have the more robust your system is.

And at least two of those companies are still bringing out combination flu/covid vaccines too.

Here you go.  Not just my opinion.  And, as I say, Lopez and Alysons 1 through infinity either naiive of deliberately obtuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/19/eu-astrazeneca-vaccin...

What a bunch of f*cking morons.  Nothing here to be happy with.  Europe appears to be led entirely by first class idiots. I think even Trump would have struggled to f*ck things up to this degree.

It probably doesn't: 1.7 million doses is a hell of a big number to need retested.

I don't know about vaccines but in the semiconductor industry if someone said that having a ton of chips rejected in testing was indicative of high quality standards they'd get laughed out of the meeting.  The quality guys are supposed to analyze the cause of failures and control the process to stop them happening.   Low yield is a symptom of something being wrong.

We all know the answer to that. If it was the St Andrews / A.G. Barr vaccine this thread would be a different place. 

In electrical or mechanical parts , yes.

in vaccine terms.....for a biological process ...?

Didn't know this, ingredient for Pfizer vaccine made in Yorkshire.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9382567/Pfizer-warns-UK-hit-EU-thr...

Can understand this, I'm from Lancashire but will happily admit Yorkshire does do "fatty molecules" well.

No, I have not, it is just that apparently you are too wretchedly simple-minded to understand that this isn't black and white, and that different regulators / panels with different culture / objectives / ethics can come up with different recommendations despite all following a very logic reasoning.

As for what is my "agenda", I personally am of the view that the recommendation of the WHO / EMA seem more pragmatic given the pandemic, so you are (again) way off the mark.

Just because the decision of the Paul Ehrlich institute was not the one I preferred doesn't mean I must automatically assume it is emotional and politically driven, but I guess this kind of nuance is lost on you.

The NHS have done an amazing job with the vaccination program. If you want to see what the private sector has done for the country during COVID then look at the PPE and track and trace scandals.

The private sector, enabled by the corrupt government have raped the public coffers for billions, without any complaints from the right wing press and BBC (aka the government's mouthpiece).

Andy F

So you recognise that different people can reasonable reach different conclusions (good), but you believe (without evidence) that other posters are "automatically" assuming specific things (bad).

Meanwhile you that you keep insisting that posters are saying the political reasoning was to spite the UK when they have not said so - you have accused me of that for example in the absence  of me doing so - you are assuming wrongly about my stance and despite me explaining it. 

You are now so incensed by the reasonable and evidenced stance that some another poster has reached that you are reduced to calling them "wretchedly simple-minded".  I assume you extend that judgment to the director and president of Italy's medical agency, for example.

Perhaps you need to put the keyboard down for a day.  

Nice try. The problem is that  I can quote you directly claiming that their decision was politicised. I have not "assumed" anything, you've put in black and white, several times. Unless I have totally misunderstood this was very clearly the point you have been making.

However, Longsufferingropeholder claim that the EMA decision did not suit my "agenda" was a clear, deliberate,  strawman, given that I had said in fact exactly the opposite.

In the meantime, you have failed completely to address the very simple and reasonable point I have made : different vaccine panels can come up with different decision because their have different ethics/ culture /mandate. Just because you don't agree with some of them does not make them automatically "politicised" and there is no evidence whatsoever that they were. All that's been put forward is hearsay.

Either you are not reading well today or you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts.

I said:

Here I am commenting on your tendency to assume a specific motivation for the politicised decision making.  I say you are falsely interpreting *motivation* in to the politicisation other posters have suggested.

See; I did not say you were falsely claiming other posters were claiming a political al aspect.  So what you say here is nothing but noise.  I said you keep falsely assuming why they think it’s politicised.

At this point you are outright telling lies or your short term memory has failed, because you have previously acknowledged the quotes from the two senior people at Italy’s medicines agency saying the decision in Italy was emotional / political.

I think the difference between semiconductors and the biotech in this kind of vaccine manufacture is that the latter is fundamentally a batch process.  The cell line has to be cultured in a bioreactor (maybe 1000 litres or more) for several weeks, before all the separation and purification processes.  Only at the end of those do you get to do any quality control.  We know that AZ has had problems with very different yields in different plants, and it seems completely plausible that occasionally you'll lose a complete batch.  It's biology, these things are living organisms that don't always do what you want or behave in a predictable way.

I have indeed, it's just that I don't consider cherry-picked hearsay from one guy in some article as credible "evidence" against many reputable vaccine panel around the world with a long history of professionalism and integrity.

All this is, is someone with a different opinion, who is accusing others with a different opinion to be politically motivated, without evidence, and then you took that as "evidence".

The UK government has 100 million doses of the Valneva vaccine on order, made in Livingston, so there will soon be a Franco-Scottish option as well, if the clinical trials go well.  (As I very much hope they do, the more options we have the better).

I had pointed out *one* possible motivation amongst some posters and the UK media. Why did you feel targeted by it ? I don't know, maybe it touched a little nerve...

Well, be careful what you wish for.

Now that those morons are deciding to play the same game we are playing we already have India banning exports to the UK which will afect the rate of vaccinations over here with all invitations to get vaccines for all under 50s cancelled, and the looming export ban from the EU potentially affecting our vaccinations drive even more.

You should be happy that thanks to these first class idiots you have been vaccinated. Had the governments from the EU countries, India, etc not been so naive you would still be waiting to be vaccinated

I think this is right, it's been a bit of a dark horse but the clinical trials look good.  I believe the manufacturing process is simpler than the mRNA vaccines; the amphiphile that's used to make the protein nanoparticles is Tween-80, which is a very widely used ingredient in cosmetics and pharma and is as cheap as chips.  The "secret sauce" is actually the adjuvant, which comes from Chilean Soapbark trees, so one has to hope that supplies of that are secure.

No, no nerves touched.  Just shows that discussing this with you is a waste of time as you continue to argue against your straw man reading motivations in to others that aren’t there, then result to insults (wretchedly small minded) when that doesn’t work.

It’s like playing chess with a pigeon on a möbius shaped chessboard.

As dark horses go, the company is interesting as well given how long they’ve been in business without a sucesfull licensing.  Just as well they and their backers persisted!

What I’ve been trying to understand well is how their adjuvant helps the body generate a good T-cell response from a recombinant protein that doesn’t engage in de novo synthesis in the host.  It must trigger some mechanism that disassembles the proteins in to segments for presentation to the appropriate immune component?  I suspect the immunologists gave up on this thread a hundred messages ago but if they’re reading...

More bad news for the Soapbark trees.  I wonder if conkers can be processed for a more local source?  Not in time for this spring/summer...

Or rather, I put some nuance on the somewhat dubious belief that the decision of these vaccine panels must absolutely be politically motivated, and that didn’t really please the UKC’s Great British AZ Vaccine cult, which you decided to side with. More out of spite than anything else  I suspect.

I’ll leave you to it.

Right.  And if there had been a major problem with reactions against PEG the Pfizer LNP composition?

The Oxford team were miles ahead in designing and testing their vaccine and AZ made a bold decision to back them before they had any efficacy data.  That, as much as anything, is responsible for us being in such a favourable position now.

And AZ know all about QA, but maintaining consistently high levels if expression in recombinant human cells isn’t like stamping out widgets.

You can choose to believe I’m motivated by sprite and pride if it lets you walk away.  I disagree.  We need the vaccination program to roll out as fast as possible across the world to put this problem behind us, and for the UK we benefit massively from Western Europe vaccinating as much and as fast as possible.  There is no reason to want to spite EU nations.  The political aspect to some of the decision is clear IMO - and as I’ve said before there are only bad choices, particularly following previous FUD from a couple of major political leaders over efficacy of the AZ vaccine in >65s.  I don’t think this recent event has helped deal with European hesitancy over the AZ vaccine.  Hence, we all loose, there is no pride or spite in that, just sorrow.

It is just your opinion, and it is completely unsubstantiated. You don’t have any evidence for it, not even a motive.

Sorry, but I fail to see what « political » motivation many of these vaccine panels  would have in suspending the AZ vaccine, for the most part to the dismay of their citizens and own government.

I don’t exclude the small possibility of some degree of politically influenced decision making, but it’s far more likely to happen the other way. Governments around the world are all desperate to vaccinate.

This is all basic common sense, but when it comes to the AZ vaccine UKC vaccine it seems to have become a cult in the UK somehow and common sense goes out the window.

Respected vaccine panels suspend it a few days to investigate a potentially rare but serious side effect, and the conclusion you immediately come to is that it must be politicised to satisfy the anti-vax - or whatever else the reason was, it was never very clear.

Well that to me seems irrational,  unreasonable and borderline conspirationist.

A far more likely explanation is that they have detected a signal of several instances of a super rare type of clotting event happening shortly after some vaccination, and decided to follow their procedure, pause and investigate.

One could argue they shouldn’t be so strict and take a more risk/reward based approach, and then I would agree.

Just my opinion?  Also, that of many other posters.  Also the piece in the NYT, a decent paper from none of the invovled nations.  Also from the director and the president of Italy’s medical agency.  It seems that a lot of people disagree with you.  Given the quotes from Italy’s agency in particular there are clear evidenced grounds to hold a reasonably view IMO.

It’s been discussed up thread quite a lot; I don’t see why I should repeat it to start another cycle of attrition arguing.  Suffice to say there is more hesitancy attatched to the AZ vaccine in several European countries, no doubt the flames of which were fanned by previous political posturing over efficacy in >65s.  The situation is different around the AZ vaccine due to the hesitancy pegged specifically to it, and the decisions made might perhaps take that in to account as well as the scientific side.

Anyhow, you said you were done.  You can let someone else have the last word, you must admit that it is technically possible.  I’ll bet myself a nice digestive biscuit you can do it.

I think the actions of the adjuvant and the protein aren't coupled.  It seems that the protein nanoparticles are formulated separately from the adjuvant - the latter is two different saponin fractions each separately formulated into nanoparticles with cholesterol & a phospholipid.  It's the Tween-80 micelle that holds the spike proteins in place to be recognised; probably just a question of getting a micelle of the right size with uncharged head groups.

Here's a nice article on the whole Chilean Soapbark tree saga, fascinating how some obscure food additives - "foaming agents used in root beer and Slurpees" - suddenly come to the centre of a crucial supply chain.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/10/single-tree-species-may...

Sorry, I don’t see what political motivation, for example, the Norway vaccine panel for example, would have in deliberately bashing the AZ vaccine.

There isn’t much meat to the bones of your argument.

I don’t see where I said it was about deliberately bashing the vaccine.  You continue to read this in to my posts.  

> Sorry, I’m quite comfortable in my minority view that there no good reason to think they have acted in bad faith.

Why do you take “political” to mean “bad faith”?  You’re surrounding yourself with strawmen.  And no, I’m not nit picking terminology.  It’s a massive step to conflate “political” with “bad faith” given some of the nuanced discussion up thread.  
 

Sure, because UKC clearly has a long history of completely unbiased view on this.... and you are saying I should believe them more than respected vaccine panel with a long history of integrity and professionalism.

Sorry, I’m quite comfortable in my minority view that there no good reason to think they have acted in bad faith.

You kept saying the suspension of those vaccine is political, and targeted specifically at this vaccine. « Bashing it » and « bad faith » seem a fair description to me of this alleged behaviour.

If that is not what your claim is then you need to explain yourself better. 

Fascinating; thanks.

I could have been clearer mind - I assume the adjuvant is triggering some protein fragmenting mechanism in the human cells that breaks up some of the spikes in to short unfolded segments for the T-cell training systems to learn from.  But I may have the wrong end of the stick on what’s happening there.

Edit: Can I twist your arm in to doing a podcast on the materials physics side of the new vaccines?  

Ok, fine, I take it back and replace « bad faith » with « political ». Here you go, doesn’t change anything.

There is still exactly the same gaping hole in your argument, you still haven’t adressed what political motivation some of these panels could reasonably be shown to have, and you still have zero concrete evidence of it.

A far more likely explanation is that they just took a decision you disagreed with, so you convinced yourself it’s politically driven, because you are incapable of understanding a slightly different reasoning than your own.

Anyway, I said I would leave to it, so I’ll better do that, as you clearly have no intention to open your mind to any kind of challenge to your position.

You haven’t challenged my position, you’ve failed to recognise it, perhaps due to the strength of pre conceived viewpoint you’ve overlaid on my posts and those of several others.

Sure.  Drop me an email through the site.  

(I may pass on doing one on deontological vs consequentialist approaches to new technology regulation, though.)

Ah sorry I didn’t phrase that well did I?  I have no platform to offer I’m afraid, but I hope an opportunity comes your way; very interesting times in the technology side.

No problem.  I've been writing this stuff up on my blog, and I know that some science writers (notably the excellent Philip Ball) have picked up on it, so it is getting out there.

I shall go blog hunting, thanks for the steer - Edit: Update - I'm getting sidetracked in to a 54 page dissection of transhumanism.  Disappointed not to see a foreword by de Grey...

Once upon a time the background to the new cases of vaccine would have made for an excellent episode of Horizon.  

I have met Aubrey de Gray once, at the drinks party for a transhumanist conference in San Francisco.  It was when I first realised that you can make a career from telling very rich people what they want to hear.

I've heard things about a drinks party in the Bay Area after such a conference.  Not I think my natural scene.

I’ve heard about those, but mine was much more sedate - a chance for those who’d stumped up for the higher sponsorship rate to hobnob with their heros, Aubrey de Gray, Ralph Merkle, Eric Drexler et al.  Not wholly comfortable but I didn’t “have to make my excuses and leave”, as the old saying goes. Anyway, sounds like you found the blog, hope you like it.

Yes.

You reckon if you worked for a brewer and they had to flush 1.7 million pints of beer down the drain because they failed QA they'd see that as a triumph of quality instead of a failure.

It's chemical engineering that's going on.  It's about control systems and if most of the production is failing final test then your control systems aren't working, probably because there's stuff you don't understand happening.

Haha I was in ageing research, a strange guy. One of the prof's I worked closely with in Brighton loved to tell stories about him. I sadly never got to meet him.

A lot of AZ vaccine has been used in the UK.  If you've had it or friends/family have had it or you think you are going to get it you've got a reason to believe in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias

I just got my blue letter today and to be completely honest if they stick me with AZ it will change my perspective.  From a personal, rather than a scientific perspective once the die is cast you may as well focus on the upside. You got the Ford instead of the Merc you actually wanted but you'll feel better about it if you can make yourself believe the Ford is just as good.  Of course, if I get lucky and get the Merc then I will slag off Fords even worse than before.

The same thing is happening with Brexit.  English people who were previously pro-EU have accepted they are no longer EU citizens and are coming to terms with the situation they have been placed in by the Brexiteers by taking anti-EU views.  Labour and even the Lib Dems aren't campaigning to reverse Brexit   England is drinking the Brexiteer's Kool Aid.   Scotland still sees a way out.

A quick  anecdote about EU vaccination...

The wife's 84 year old uncle who has lived his entire life on the west coast of Ireland, has just spent the last eight weeks in hospital and is waiting to be discharged into a care home.

Has he had his first dose yet? Has he f*ck!

He's 84 years old, ill, in a hospital, a classic case of vulnerability and he's still  waiting for a first dose.

He would have had it months ago if he was England.

Come to your  own conclusions about the glorious  EU.

On the other side of the equation he'd also be twice as likely to have caught Covid and died over the course of the pandemic if he was in England.

You still haven’t explained what you’ve got against AZ / why you think it’s significantly worse than any other vaccine approved so far. 

The Pfizer has more horsepower and rear wheel drive. Obviously. I wonder if he would be such a sceptic had the vaccine-maker partnered with a scottish university. 

More side effects

Less effective

Severe production problems / quality issues

AZ is old technology, its chance was to be first to market and first to volume.  It failed, Pfizer got to market first and got to volume first.  The window for AZ closes when more new technology vaccines get to market and supply catches up with demand.

AZ is going to get pushed out of the market in the rich countries, except the UK where there's a patriotism angle, and it's going to have to fight China and Russia for the poorer ones.  The Chinese and Russian vaccines also seem to work pretty OK.

I am sure you are right that they do not know what they are doing. 

This particular batch was not made by AZ but was manufactured by Serum, the worlds largest vaccine manufacturer.  
 

Well the going price of AZ for developing countries is $4. Chinese’s is $30 and Russian $10.  

Az is non profit as per the licensing agreement .  

This just isn't true. Stop pushing disinformation. It's a superb vaccine. Really you should be ashamed of yourself pushing this nonsense because people like you will contribute to reduced demand.

I've had pfizer and not in the UK but I'd happily have had AZ. Any of them are great. 

What you've said is not true. Where are you getting your information from?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00409-0

I am convinced he is a Russian bot on the quiet. 

Also the Chinese vaccines are based on the inactive virus or 'last, last, last gen' as Tom would put it. Glad to hear professor Tom thinks these work 'OK' unlike the horrible English vaccine.

You've certainly convinced me with your clearly thought out arguments and logical reasoning.

I wasn't aware the EU ran the health service on the West coast of Ireland, they sneaked that one past.

A quick anecdote about the UK's covid response: my mate's dad is dead.

N=1 data is not very useful, is it?