Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Swinglowandslow]

Errrr...... I am 65
????

Whoops!??

 

[harpo_72]

Need a new boiler, plumber replacing next weekend. Big issue is trying to find a place to stay for the weekend. Just went on Airbnb and found somewhere close by and checking if it’s all okay !

 

[Ethan]

Just been surfing the net. Came across a good read ( Washington post ) re the vaccines. Bottom line, which one would you choose. The Oxford ( British ) one, astra Zeneca. Or the ( German) Pfizer one, There words, not mine. It was odd how some folk perceived the German one which was developed by a Turkish guy as the posh one. Whilst reading this I thought how odd it was that 6 months ago we were desperate for any. Yet here we are that in some instances there’s now a choice. Yet in some countries they are still waiting for any.
Comes on a day when I read that China is being accused of donating vaccines to countries in favour for trade. Seems to me the world is really getting back to normal.

People in the UK have been rejecting Pfizer for the "British" one. Vaccine nationalism is definitely a real thing. The UK has not helped this by some of the language used while the vax were coming out. Procurement policy has very clearly prioritised UK manufacturing over companies with the best track record of vaccine development and production. The displacement of Merck from an Oxford deal to put a (mostly) UK company(AZ) in instead was a mistake in my view. AZ has no track record in vaccine production and their production has fallen over quite a few times now. Likewise Novavax and Valneva got big contracts because they have UK production, even though the Valneva one is still a long way from completion. Pfizer and J&J should have had larger orders. mRNAs are also easier to manufacture then viral vectors, so more de-risking could have occurred if the Pfizer order was larger. The acquisition costs of the different vaccines are irrelevant compared to the cost of slippage.

 

[chellie]

Need a new boiler, plumber replacing next weekend. Big issue is trying to find a place to stay for the weekend. Just went on Airbnb and found somewhere close by and checking if it’s all okay !

Why do you have to move out?

 

[harpo_72]

Why do you have to move out?

No water and The door will be open all day .. better to give the clear space.
Thankfully Airbnb okay

 

[Swinglowandslow]

People in the UK have been rejecting Pfizer for the "British" one. Vaccine nationalism is definitely a real thing. The UK has not helped this by some of the language used while the vax were coming out. Procurement policy has very clearly prioritised UK manufacturing over companies with the best track record of vaccine development and production. The displacement of Merck from an Oxford deal to put a (mostly) UK company(AZ) in instead was a mistake in my view. AZ has no track record in vaccine production and their production has fallen over quite a few times now. Likewise Novavax and Valneva got big contracts because they have UK production, even though the Valneva one is still a long way from completion. Pfizer and J&J should have had larger orders. mRNAs are also easier to manufacture then viral vectors, so more de-risking could have occurred if the Pfizer order was larger. The acquisition costs of the different vaccines are irrelevant compared to the cost of slippage.

I agree that for some they"must have the British" vaccine attitude is somewhat small minded.
However, in respect of the Government ordering Vaccines manufactured in U.K., I would agree with that.
Maybe putting all your eggs into one ( overseas) basket isn't the wisest thing re these vaccines, and maybe they had an inkling of the possibility of production elsewhere being prevented from being imported?
Which nearly happened, ; and which we know, was threatened to happen.

You know of course which ,from a purely scientific/medical point of view, is the best vaccine(s) to have, but there would be other considerations also.

That said, I happen to have had the pFizer one, about which I am highly satisfied, having read your insights on it.?

 

[Ethan]

I agree that for some they"must have the British" vaccine attitude is somewhat small minded.
However, in respect of the Government ordering Vaccines manufactured in U.K., I would agree with that.
Maybe putting all your eggs into one ( overseas) basket isn't the wisest thing re these vaccines, and maybe they had an inkling of the possibility of production elsewhere being prevented from being imported?
Which nearly happened, ; and which we know, was threatened to happen.

You know of course which ,from a purely scientific/medical point of view, is the best vaccine(s) to have, but there would be other considerations also.

That said, I happen to have had the pFizer one, about which I am highly satisfied, having read your insights on it.?

I am involved in ordering medicines, so have some familiarity with the manufacturing side too. The point is precisely not to put all your eggs in one basket, so the sensible strategy is to place most of your orders across the companies with the best track record of developing and manufacturing, the most reliable mechanism of vaccine, and to mix around a minority of the order book amongst others, interesting proposals and local companies. That is not what the UK did. They refused to allow Oxford to do a deal with Merck, one of the world's biggest vaccine manufacturers with factories all over the world, and insisted on Astra Zeneca instead, a company with no track record or manufacturing expertise in vaccines. AZ have, unsurprisingly, made a number of mistakes, ranging from the design of the studies to mistakes in manufacturing resulting in several serious short-notice delays. I maintain Merck would have done (possibly a lot) better.

The obvious vax to build a strategy on was Pfizer, even setting aside any efficacy differences. One of the biggest companies and very effective at getting stuff done. mRNA is also easier to make than viral vectors. The acquisition cost is almost irrelevant compared to the cost of delay or supply shortages.

Some of the other orders were wild cards. Novavax looks like a good one, but Valneva remains an unknown quantity and neither may arrive before every adult is done anyway. But the UK ordered more of each of those than Pfizer. That is a pretty risky strategy.

 

[bobmac]

''I would pick whichever was most readily available to me''
Dr Fauci 13/3/21

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I am involved in ordering medicines, so have some familiarity with the manufacturing side too. The point is precisely not to put all your eggs in one basket, so the sensible strategy is to place most of your orders across the companies with the best track record of developing and manufacturing, the most reliable mechanism of vaccine, and to mix around a minority of the order book amongst others, interesting proposals and local companies. That is not what the UK did. They refused to allow Oxford to do a deal with Merck, one of the world's biggest vaccine manufacturers with factories all over the world, and insisted on Astra Zeneca instead, a company with no track record or manufacturing expertise in vaccines. AZ have, unsurprisingly, made a number of mistakes, ranging from the design of the studies to mistakes in manufacturing resulting in several serious short-notice delays. I maintain Merck would have done (possibly a lot) better.

The obvious vax to build a strategy on was Pfizer, even setting aside any efficacy differences. One of the biggest companies and very effective at getting stuff done. mRNA is also easier to make than viral vectors. The acquisition cost is almost irrelevant compared to the cost of delay or supply shortages.

Some of the other orders were wild cards. Novavax looks like a good one, but Valneva remains an unknown quantity and neither may arrive before every adult is done anyway. But the UK ordered more of each of those than Pfizer. That is a pretty risky strategy.

So are you suggesting that the UK's vaccination strategy has been a failure?

 

[drdel]

I am involved in ordering medicines, so have some familiarity with the manufacturing side too. The point is precisely not to put all your eggs in one basket, so the sensible strategy is to place most of your orders across the companies with the best track record of developing and manufacturing, the most reliable mechanism of vaccine, and to mix around a minority of the order book amongst others, interesting proposals and local companies. That is not what the UK did. They refused to allow Oxford to do a deal with Merck, one of the world's biggest vaccine manufacturers with factories all over the world, and insisted on Astra Zeneca instead, a company with no track record or manufacturing expertise in vaccines. AZ have, unsurprisingly, made a number of mistakes, ranging from the design of the studies to mistakes in manufacturing resulting in several serious short-notice delays. I maintain Merck would have done (possibly a lot) better.

The obvious vax to build a strategy on was Pfizer, even setting aside any efficacy differences. One of the biggest companies and very effective at getting stuff done. mRNA is also easier to make than viral vectors. The acquisition cost is almost irrelevant compared to the cost of delay or supply shortages.

Some of the other orders were wild cards. Novavax looks like a good one, but Valneva remains an unknown quantity and neither may arrive before every adult is done anyway. But the UK ordered more of each of those than Pfizer. That is a pretty risky strategy.

When investing it in innovation can be better to be a big fish in a smaller pond.

By investing in a joint University / corporate approach the UK was able to negotiate the 'at cost ' deal and robustly protect UK role.

A UK deal with Merck would have had less influence for Oxford Uni. and the UK contract would have had to fit with the company's T&Cs and IPR ownership.

 

[chellie]

No water and The door will be open all day .. better to give the clear space.
Thankfully Airbnb okay

Oh. We've never moved out when having one done.

 

[Ethan]

When investing it in innovation can be better to be a big fish in a smaller pond.

By investing in a joint University / corporate approach the UK was able to negotiate the 'at cost ' deal and robustly protect UK role.

A UK deal with Merck would have had less influence for Oxford Uni. and the UK contract would have had to fit with the company's T&Cs and IPR ownership.

This wasn't an exercise in innovation, this was an exercise in reliably and safely securing product. Choosing a company with basically no experience in the space isn't innovation. The Merck contract may not have agreed exclusive supply to the UK, but they would have been much more likely to be able to reliably provide product. AZ have not, their supply capabilities have fallen back repeatedlyand it remains to be seen if they can supply the ongoing demand. In June, the AZ CEO said they would be able to supply 200m doses by September 2020. That was hopelessly optimistic and they missed dit by a mile.

The 'at cost' deal is of little consequence. The EU got a good deal on Pfizer and a Merck/Oxford deal would have been cheaper than Pfizer and cheaper again to the UK because of the Oxford link. Any extra cost is a drop in the ocean of the monies spent/wasted on the pandemic response. I am not sure that less influence for Oxford would have been bad, given their contribution to the clunky design of the trial programme. Could have done with some more regulatory and production expertise.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

This wasn't an exercise in innovation, this was an exercise in reliably and safely securing product. Choosing a company with basically no experience in the space isn't innovation. The Merck contract may not have agreed exclusive supply to the UK, but they would have been much more likely to be able to reliably provide product. AZ have not, their supply capabilities have fallen back repeatedlyand it remains to be seen if they can supply the ongoing demand. In June, the AZ CEO said they would be able to supply 200m doses by September 2020. That was hopelessly optimistic and they missed dit by a mile.

The 'at cost' deal is of little consequence. The EU got a good deal on Pfizer and a Merck/Oxford deal would have been cheaper than Pfizer and cheaper again to the UK because of the Oxford link. Any extra cost is a drop in the ocean of the monies spent/wasted on the pandemic response. I am not sure that less influence for Oxford would have been bad, given their contribution to the clunky design of the trial programme. Could have done with some more regulatory and production expertise.

So the EU got it right and the UK are wrong.
?

 

[harpo_72]

Oh. We've never moved out when having one done.

If I was working in an office I think I would have stayed. But it’s over the weekend so it was a case of get out the way let them crack on

 

[Imurg]

Well, the jab must be working coz I'm starting to feel like death warmed up...
Sounds like a couple of paracetamol and an earlier night than normal.....

 

[Ethan]

So the EU got it right and the UK are wrong.
?

It remains to be seen if the UK got it right, because the ongoing supply for the remaining first vax and the load of second vax is not secured, but even if it all works out, in my opinion the UK strategy placed an unnecessary over-dependence on the Oxford/AZ vaccine, which was risky. I find it difficult to imagine that a Merck/Oxford deal, or a greater emphasis on Pfizer would not have provided smoother supplies to both the UK and the EU. The EU has been massively let down by AZ whose delivery failures to them have been disastrous.

A national vaccination strategy to prevent tens of thousands of deaths is not a situation where it is OK to take unnecessary risks and then say 'Its OK, it worked out after all'.

But rather than troll, let us know your analysis of the situation.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

It remains to be seen if the UK got it right, because the ongoing supply for the remaining first vax and the load of second vax is not secured, but even if it all works out, in my opinion the UK strategy placed an unnecessary over-dependence on the Oxford/AZ vaccine, which was risky. I find it difficult to imagine that a Merck/Oxford deal, or a greater emphasis on Pfizer would not have provided smoother supplies to both the UK and the EU. The EU has been massively let down by AZ whose delivery failures to them have been disastrous.

A national vaccination strategy to prevent tens of thousands of deaths is not a situation where it is OK to take unnecessary risks and then say 'Its OK, it worked out after all'.

But rather than troll, let us know your analysis of the situation.

Firstly I would ask you to answer my question.

Are you saying that the EU strategy is proving more successful?

I appreciate that you are opposed to the UK Government and its overall handling of the pandemic and many would agree but it seems pretty clear that so far the vaccination programme in this country is proving more successful than our former partners in the EU.

And someone questioning your view on an issue does not constitute trolling.

 

[ColchesterFC]

It remains to be seen if the UK got it right, because the ongoing supply for the remaining first vax and the load of second vax is not secured

I thought I'd read, possibly on the BBC News website, that they were stockpiling enough vaccines to make sure that they had enough to give the second jabs on time to everyone that has had their first jab. The quote was along the lines of they could have gone faster with giving people the first jab but wanted to make sure they had enough held back for second jabs.

 

[Ethan]

I thought I'd read, possibly on the BBC News website, that they were stockpiling enough vaccines to make sure that they had enough to give the second jabs on time to everyone that has had their first jab. The quote was along the lines of they could have gone faster with giving people the first jab but wanted to make sure they had enough held back for second jabs.

That is the plan but as I understand it, the stockpiling depends on ongoing supply.

 

[Ethan]

Firstly I would ask you to answer my question.

Are you saying that the EU strategy is proving more successful?

I appreciate that you are opposed to the UK Government and its overall handling of the pandemic and many would agree but it seems pretty clear that so far the vaccination programme in this country is proving more successful than our former partners in the EU.

And someone questioning your view on an issue does not constitute trolling.

Your question misses the point. It isn't a matter of UK or EU policy being better or worse. Each one can be examined in its own right. The EU policy was OK, but the execution was bad, and they got screwed by AZ. The contracts for EU and UK were recently published and in fact the EU one was signed one day before the UK. The problem with EU rollout is partly due to that supply problem, and also to do with slower gear up in member states.

But none of that is relevant to the UK position, except to reinforce the point that relying on AZ was an unwise strategy.

Trying to create a spurious false dichotomy (a form of whatabouttery), or using a straw man argument is indeed trolling.