Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[stewartingram]

All this talk about the AZ vaccine being manufactured "at cost", but no-one has said what "at cost" really means. 

Lets go slightly hypothetical, to put it in perspective. 

Say it cost £1 to produce a vial (or whatever) of a pre-designed vaccine. This will include all materials, containers, packaging, distribution, wages, overheads such as buildings, power, etc. But the firm is (normally) in business to make a profit (quite rightly). So they don't sell at £1, they increase that to give a profit. Say it now sells at £2. 

But they have put past expenditure in to develop the product. Say another pound, making it £3.

This is probably more like the true "at cost" meaning. More would probably be added making it say £5 at normal times.

Now these figures are simplistic, to show the relationships. I strongly suspect that the "cost" figure would be the £3 figure rather than the £5 (or more) figure. We live in the real world, these things have to happen.

And I stress again, I have NO idea of the real figures, I am just using numbers for illustration.

Edited March 26, 2021 by stewartingram

[ed7]

7 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

All this talk about the AZ vaccine being manufactured "at cost", but no-one has said what "at cost" really means. 

Lets go slightly hypothetical, to put it in perspective. 

Say it cost £1 to produce a vial (or whatever) of a pre-designed vaccine. This will include all materials, containers, packaging, distribution, wages, overheads such as buildings, power, etc. But the firm is (normally) in business to make a profit (quite rightly). So they don't sell at £1, they increase that to give a profit. Say it now sells at £2. 

But they have put past expenditure in to develop the product. Say another pound, making it £3.

This is probably more like the true "at cost" meaning. More would probably be added making it say £5 at normal times.

Now these figures are simplistic, to show the relationships. I strongly suspect that the "cost" figure would be the £3 figure rather than the £5 (or more) figure. We live in the real world, these things have to happen.

And I stress again, I have NO idea of the real figures, I am just using numbers for illustration.

 

Based on your hypothetical figures I would say AZ are charging £1 per dose.    But on top of this the government paid Oxford to develop the vaccine and probably also paid the owners of the manufacturing facilities (who are not AZ) the cost of expanding or setting up the production plants.   So the headline £1 per dose is not the total cost to the government.   Nevertheless it seems very reasonable compared with what other vaccine firms are charging - although these firms may have paid more in the way of development and capital costs.        

[PenrithBeacon]

It's not as though producing vaccines is a new problem and the Indian Serum Institute seems to be producing huge numbers of doses without technical issues (political issues aside).

But AZ does have issues. particularly, it seems, at their Belgian factory which is still not meeting orders. 

[Nick C]

59 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

 I'm not impressed with their production engineering in actually making the stuff. Pretty poor.

On the contrary, I'm very impressed with their production engineering in actually making the stuff - they have gone from nothing, to producing millions of doses of a totally new product, in just a few months, in the middle of a global pandemic. Seriously impressive. 

[chris p bacon]

27 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

It's not as though producing vaccines is a new problem and the Indian Serum Institute seems to be producing huge numbers of doses without technical issues (political issues aside).

But AZ does have issues. particularly, it seems, at their Belgian factory which is still not meeting orders. 

 

The Indian plant is not producing anywhere near the amount it planned to. The UK/AZ have sent more technical staff to Belguim to help improve production there.

 

All of the vaccine producers have/are experiencing production issues that limit supply, they just don't get reported in the same way.

[-missy-]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Dont forget the vaccine doesn't make you immune, even those of us who have been vaccinated can still catch Covid, we just won't be as ill.  The fact we can all still catch it means that it can still mutate even if everyone has had a vaccination - there will remain a risk it continues to mutate and one of those mutations will require a change to the vaccine.  The expectation I believe is that vaccination development will be ongoing and it will be a long time before we stop needing them if ever, though it may only be in the more vulnerable people long term.

 

Thank you both.

 

So much more eloquently put than I managed to. Isn't the phrase "no one is safe until we are all safe" appropriate at the moment?

 

Missy.

[Ohmisterporter]

With regard to recycling; are the empty glass vials returned for cleaning and refilling or simply melted down for re-manufacture?

[TheQ]

46 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

It's not as though producing vaccines is a new problem and the Indian Serum Institute seems to be producing huge numbers of doses without technical issues (political issues aside).

But AZ does have issues. particularly, it seems, at their Belgian factory which is still not meeting orders. 

Um No problems?

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-55753586

[Hobby]

20 minutes ago, -missy- said:

Isn't the phrase "no one is safe until we are all safe" appropriate at the moment?

 

No I don't think  it is. The experts admit that we'll never reach that position as there will always be a risk, whether that be mutation, spread, some people not wanting to be vaccinated etc. 

 

We can't eradicate it, as that link earlier said, what we can do is learn to live with it. 

 

That is what people need to accept, same as any other part of modern life. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Hobby

[Oldddudders]

2 minutes ago, TheQ said:

Um No problems?

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-55753586

That news item is dated 21st January, the fire was in a building under construction, and the firm, naturally enough, denied it would affect production. 

[Hobby]

53 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

 

But AZ does have issues. particularly, it seems, at their Belgian factory which is still not meeting orders. 

 

If you do a search as I suggested you will find the other manufactures are also having issues, not just AZ. 

[Andy Hayter]

2 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

To put it bluntly. No it isn't. The experts admit that we'll never reach that position as there will always be a risk, whether that be mutation, spread, etc. 

 

We can't eradicate it, as that link earlier said, what we can do is learn to live with it. 

 

That is what people need to accept, same as any other part of modern life. 

 

I think you missed what was said.

 

It did not say "everyone is safe when...."

It said "no one is safe until....."

 

I think there is acceptance that some people will remain at risk - even if that risk has been significantly reduced.

[Hobby]

27 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

It said "no one is safe until....."

 

Perhaps you need to add the rest of that quote 

 

"until we are all safe" 

 

Which is a position which will never happen according to the experts. So my comments are valid. 

[-missy-]

 

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/a-global-pandemic-requires-a-world-effort-to-end-it-none-of-us-will-be-safe-until-everyone-is-safe

 

Missy.

[Hobby]

I hadn't realised who the quote came from... Rather supports my stance, I'd rather take the opinion of experts than her any day, the WHO haven't exactly shone either. 

[rocor]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

No I don't think  it is. The experts admit that we'll never reach that position as there will always be a risk, whether that be mutation, spread, some people not wanting to be vaccinated etc. 

 

We can't eradicate it, as that link earlier said, what we can do is learn to live with it. 

 

That is what people need to accept, same as any other part of modern life. 

 

Smallpox, the only virus that the human race has eradicated, appears to have been particularly amenable to its own demise. Unfortunately COVID-19, along with numerous other viruses appear to be a lot more recalcitrant. So yes, we will need to learn to live with it (for now).

[-missy-]

28 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I hadn't realised who the quote came from... Rather supports my stance, I'd rather take the opinion of experts than her any day, the WHO haven't exactly shone either. 

 

M.

[Hobby]

Missy, you are missing the point, the experts are saying that it may never be eradicated so as long as there are people not vaccinated (which we have to accept is a given, if we, a first world country with an educated populace can't even manage then what chance is there) so there will be a risk. Maybe we will get lucky and it will mutate into a less lethal varient, maybe it won't, we don't know. But put simply based on what we know that quote is pure wishful thinking in its literal meaning and is pie in the sky. Though a good soundbite. 

 

"The more people that are vaccinated the less the risk." Is a realistic summary. 

 

But that doesn't make a good headline even though its the truth. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Hobby

[Mark Saunders]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

[hayfield]

20 hours ago, Hobby said:

I'm a bit puzzled by that, PB, the production of it in the uk has been pretty good, though our sites had a head start over others abroad. We had several links on the old thread showing just how difficult it was to set up manufactoring of a vaccine, it isn't simply a question of mixing a few chemicals together which many people think. If any part of the complex process goes wrong then delays happen. Some thing the EU seem to ignore. Also we've heard a lot about the AZ issues but virtually nothing about Pfizer who have also had problems, a quick search reveals them.

 

I think you underestimate just how difficult vaccine production is, especially a new one like this and it's unfair criticism. 

 

 

I think for a few weeks the UK Oxford Astra Zeneca plants may have had issues, but it had a head start over the Dutch and Belgium sites, firstly they suffered the start up issues well before the vaccine was required and were able to tweak the process as they went on to increase the productively on the process.

 

In contrast to the UK site both Dutch and Belgium sites had to hit the ground running, I have a recollection that part of the issues is the quality of the components they are sourcing (I assume) from different sources. Certainly the UK government was there fully supporting all parties in the background in the UK. Where as the  Dutch and Belgium sites are partner companies, could it be more of a problem with these partners and the components they are using, rather than with Astra Zeneca themselves ? As you say its a delicate process which has to be undertaken and governed by its weakest link(s)

Edited March 27, 2021 by hayfield

[Pete the Elaner]

16 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Missy, you are missing the point, the experts are saying that it may never be eradicated so as long as there are people not vaccinated (which we have to accept is a given, if we, a first world country with an educated populace can't even manage then what chance is there) so there will be a risk. Maybe we will get lucky and it will mutate into a less lethal varient, maybe it won't, we don't know. But put simply based on what we know that quote is pure wishful thinking in its literal meaning and is pie in the sky. Though a good soundbite. 

 

"The more people that are vaccinated the less the risk." Is a realistic summary. 

 

But that doesn't make a good headline even though its the truth. 

 

Even if everyone is vaccinated, it would not rid the world of this virus.

Assuming vaccines are 100% effective (which is not the case), they only protect people from reacting badly to the virus. It will still be able to circulate, passing from person to person either unnoticed or just as a minor irritant like the common cold.

 

I accept some people have medical conditions preventing vaccination. Hopefully with more knowledge, this will not be the case for very long.

For those refusing vaccination, that is their risk & I see no reason why I should live my life in a bubble for their benefit.

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

It's not as though producing vaccines is a new problem and the Indian Serum Institute seems to be producing huge numbers of doses without technical issues (political issues aside).

But AZ does have issues. particularly, it seems, at their Belgian factory which is still not meeting orders. 

 David

 

You may have hit the nail on the head, but not just with the Belgium site but the Dutch is still not up and running fully yet as the EU has not granted it a licence for the vaccine

[NIK]

7 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Even if everyone is vaccinated, it would not rid the world of this virus.

Assuming vaccines are 100% effective (which is not the case), they only protect people from reacting badly to the virus. It will still be able to circulate, passing from person to person either unnoticed or just as a minor irritant like the common cold.

 

I accept some people have medical conditions preventing vaccination. Hopefully with more knowledge, this will not be the case for very long.

For those refusing vaccination, that is their risk & I see no reason why I should live my life in a bubble for their benefit.

Hi,

 

The vaccines that have been approved by the UK and mentioned on the BBC may also provide some reduction in the transmission of COVID-19.

 

Data from studies not confirmed by peer review indicate around 54% for the Pfizer after the 2nd dose and the AZ also effective.

 

If they do not reduce transmission this will increase the risk for the vaccinated and the unvaccinated when social restrictions are relaxed.

 

Regards

 

Nick

 

 

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Even if everyone is vaccinated, it would not rid the world of this virus.

Assuming vaccines are 100% effective (which is not the case), they only protect people from reacting badly to the virus. It will still be able to circulate, passing from person to person either unnoticed or just as a minor irritant like the common cold.

If that's how vaccines behaved we'd still have smallpox, and vaccines have effectively eliminated various other diseases locally, if not worldwide. In theory it's possible to eliminate a virus via vaccination, as that demonstrated.  There are actually two diseases that have been completely eradicated, smallpox and rinderpest, the latter a disease of cattle.

 

So whatever the reasons for some possible and others not I think the claim that vaccines only prevent or reduce bad outcomes is overly pessimistic. And I believe the evidence to date does suggest a reduction, if not to zero, of transmissibility with covid-19 vaccines.

 

edit: which the post just above this one has already pointed out!

Edited March 26, 2021 by Reorte

[Andy Hayter]

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

Perhaps you need to add the rest of that quote 

 

"until we are all safe" 

 

Which is a position which will never happen according to the experts. So my comments are valid. 

 

I think we have to consider, safe from what?  If safe from the virus and all its impacts then I have to agree with you.  If we think safe from death, then I am less pessimistic and think that the statement stands - at least as far as we can see at the moment.

 

AFAIK no fully vaccinated person has yet died as a result of the virus.