AstraZeneca: screwing the pooch

[W Balboos GHB]

AstraZeneca's vaccine, with all of it's improved stability and ease of handling, just found out something they hadn't expected. The US regulators who grant EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) are not simply there to rubber-stamp through any vaccine that's submitted to them. They are seriously looking into them. AstraZeneca supplied outdated data, potentially data that skews its efficacy and thus improve its chances of getting the EUA for the US. I, personally, would like to get the latest data on the efficacy for older persons (which was or is still problematic). The good news:   more confidence that US regulators aren't rubber-stamping this stuff through. The bad news:   less trust than before* in the AstraZeneca vaccine - especially with three alternatives available (here). One of many articles[^] * bad reports w.r.t. effectiveness on the elderly just 'disappeared' from the news

Ravings en masse^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

[Mike Hankey]

Not surprising; where's there's money to be made there is sure to be corruption!

The less you need, the more you have. JaxCoder.com

[Cp Coder]

Thankfully we had the Pfizer vaccine.

Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!

[Slacker007]

AstraZeneca has a 79% efficacy rate as apposed to Pfizer 95%+ efficacy rate. That rate drops as age increases over 65. do the math. AstraZeneca sucks. I got my first Pfizer shot 3/14. Getting the second one next week.

[W Balboos GHB]

Actually, it's the 79% that's being questioned. The age data magically disappeared from the public discourse. (So did blood type related and info w.r.t. serious results if you get COVID). The important part . . . if it's true . . . is protection from serious illness. I wasn't worried about catching COVID so much as being hospitalized and/or dying because of it. They claim it's 100% effective for that. Their claims, however, have just gotten a kick in the nuts. My Pfizer second shot plus two weeks happened yesterday. Shopping without gloves, taking mail in and opening it the same day, and for the shopping, not sanitizing all the food. Mrs. Wife actually went to a restaurant with a friend (she had Moderna a week earlier to start so we graduated together). Irony: Oxford/AstraZeneca had a major head start over all the other vaccines (the Oxford part). Lesson learned: the new technology, mRNA, is going to be amazingly important because of both flexibility and development speed. And not containing any infectious vectors, dead or weakened.

Ravings en masse^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

[Jorgen Andersson]

Indeed an interesting comment. AZ is supposedly to be sold to developing countries at a no-profit. So who would gain the most from losing a competitor? From Pfizer to Moderna: who's making billions from Covid-19 vaccines? | Business | The Guardian[^] I also just checked, Modernas clinical trial was led and funded by NIAID.

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

[W Balboos GHB]

Alas, so true. Interestingly, I often squeeze the truest version of the news out of the business sections. Politics causes skewing of reality but even politics is driven, ultimately, by money. The business point of view of the various articles is not so much about the efficacy of the drug as how it hurt the stock because doubts where cast (and thus the why's). Look on the bright side: we're not being offered Sputnik V or Sinovac

Ravings en masse^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

[Kenneth Haugland]

Fun fact: Jens Stoltenberg and NATO staff to get AstraZeneca vaccine - as a gift from Poland - Norway Today[^] Thanks?!? :^)

[obermd]

And the latest report shows that it may be no more effective than the single shot Johnson vaccine.

[musefan]

So less effective then. But.... still better than nothing, eh?

[5teveH]

Rather than pick "one of many articles", why not look at actual data. The UK has now performed about 28 million vaccinations, (including over 2 million 2nd doses), with pretty much, a 50:50 split between Pfizer and AstraZeneca. And the UK Government, make a whole lot of data publicly available including efficacy. Link provided below. There are a lot of figures in the report but, my reading of it, is that there is little to choose between the two vaccines. I'm not going to extract any of the report here, because I could show numbers which favour Pfizer or AstraZeneca or show both to be the same. If AstraZeneca jumped the gun, in going public with interim figures, then that was naive. But that does not make it a bad, (or even lesser) vaccine. It just means they are not handling their PR very well. And, in fact, the 'one of many articles' that you link to, actually quotes Dr Fauci: "This is likely a very good vaccine". Also, AstraZeneca is not profiting from this vaccine, so the only people who gain from the unwarranted scare tactics are it's competitors - who are making huge profits. So, if anyone wants to look at actual data, try here: Public Health England vaccine effectiveness report[^]

[W Balboos GHB]

You wasted a lot of text when the reality is quite clear: 1 - the data submitted was outdated and that was no ones fault but A-Z's Quoting Fauci:  the key is "very likely" - as in we need to see the :elephant:ing latest data! Stats from the UK government - as though they are more credible then those released by A-Z? You forgot to check the joke-icon selector when you posted this reply. As for "no profit" - I've seen how businesses count their money - what are there expenses, etc. I've seen hugely profitable companies accounting methods somehow turn themselves into money losers. Make me think about how the EU was so suppertime of getting vaccines distributed to the poorer nations. Then, of course, came the export controls (bans). Words are cheap.

Ravings en masse^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

[W Balboos GHB]

Absolutely yes - better than nothing. The choice, at least in the US, however is not 'nothing'. There are three other options.

Ravings en masse^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

[musefan]

Is it possible to have more than one?

[W Balboos GHB]

I presume you're referring to the potential for boosters. Currently that's under discussion and research. It has been hypothesized that, at least in terms of a booster, a different vaccine may be a better choice as it will broaden the immunity not only as a booster but because it's just somewhat different. Still, however, a question. Other uses for your post: "Cuando tengo mas de uno" - the catch-phrase, many years ago, for Schaffer Beer: "When you're having more than one". English[^] Español[^] Or, if you're an immortal . . . there can be only one.

Ravings en masse^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

[Kent Sharkey]

The weirdest part is that this isn't AZ's first kick at doing trials, but they seemed to have messed these up from the beginning - some people getting half doses, their messaging around >65s, etc. Someone better not get their bonus this year. :doh: Still, I'd take it over not having one. (Especially as it's increasingly likely that this will be the one offered when they get to me)

TTFN - Kent

[W Balboos GHB]

Kent Sharkey wrote:

(Especially as it's increasingly likely that this will be the one offered when they get to me)

I feel a bit guilty about that as the US has authorized transferring the AZ to Canada and Mexico. This (at least) was before the current announcement that it's not going to be given EUA so fast. Supposedly, there's been enough of a production increases for the other three that, by the time AZ was expected to be authorized (at that time, a few days ago), the US was thought we would be pretty much saturated with the others. Still, as they say, "any port in a storm". As long as prevention of serious disease at 100% is true it's a bargain.

Ravings en masse^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

[Joe Woodbury]

Apparently, AZ also broke their own protocols in analyzing data.

[5teveH]

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:

Stats from the UK government - as though they are more credible then those released by A-Z?

Looking at the outcome of 28 million vaccinations has to be more credible, (and more accurate), than looking at any trial. There is no reason why the UK Government would be anything other than factual - particularly as, lying would be a far riskier approach. And, when presented with actual data collected after 28 million vaccinations, (by the UK Government) versus the press looking to stir up another sh*t-storm, I know which I'm going to choose. Also, no-one is saying that the AstraZeneca results are wrong - just too early. So far, every claim made, (mostly by the EU), that the AstraZeneca vaccine is ineffective/unsafe has been proven to be completely wrong. Their credibility has been damaged by politicians and the press. Not by the quality of their vaccine.

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:

Make me think about how the EU was so suppertime of getting vaccines distributed to the poorer nations. Then, of course, came the export controls (bans). Words are cheap.

The UK is not part of the EU. The EU, (who, incorrectly, accused both the UK & US of export bans), hasn't actually enforced an export ban - yet! Yes they are talking about it and, yes, Italy unilaterally withheld an export to Australia - but I don't think they count as a 'poorer nation'. The UK funded the development of the AstraZeneca vaccine; has no export bans; has not even suggested export bans; and, in fact, it is already being used in 70 countries. And, no, I have no vested interest in AstraZeneca. Just the facts! :(

[Forogar]

Clearly you are part of the US conspiracy to say that everything US is good and everything else is cr@p, whereas in reality it is generally the reverse. ;P

- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.