5 ms·

It’s interesting how the Astra Zeneca vaccine is such an emotional topic. In the UK it’s seen as the greatest weapon against the pandemic, in the US it is not p

It’s interesting how the Astra Zeneca vaccine is such an emotional topic. In the UK it’s seen as the greatest weapon against the pandemic, in the US it is not playing much of a role and in the EU public perception is super negative.

caffeine 6y ago
My perception of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is that their credibility is compromised. I take claims of its efficacy with a similar dose of salt to claims about the Russian and Chinese vaccines. Reason is that early on they were rushing data and approvals on grounds of national pride, in a very similar way to the Chinese and Russian authorities. Pfizer and Moderna seem to have been more thorough.
- LawnGnome 6y ago
  Interestingly, the interim Sputnik results were published in the Lancet today, and they're good: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00234-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... I don't disagree about the process, though.
- orra 6y ago
  This is nonsense. It's not about national pride. The UK authorised Pfizer first. We knew back in December how effective just one dose[1] of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is, at stopping death. See figure 2 on page 28. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
  - caffeine 6y ago
    The link you posted is about the Moderna vaccine, not AstraZeneca. I have no qualms with the Moderna vaccine, I consider it and the Pfizer to be the most effective and least questionable.
    - orra 6y ago
      Argh, you're right. I badly skimmed over the JCVI document.
- neilsense 6y ago
  What you're saying makes no sense. Comparing the UK to China/Russia based on what? We have some of the best research and industrial pharma in the world and we don't hold scientists hostage if they say the wrong things. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. I can only believe you are trolling in some way, or have you own nationalist pride over Pfizer/Moderna.
  - caffeine 6y ago
    They never did a proper phase 3 trial. Instead they did two half-trials, with different doses. Initially they pretended this was done on purpose, and claimed 90% efficacy: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 Later it came out this was an accident and cover-up, spun as a lucky discovery: https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-da... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-dosing/dosing-error-turns-into-lucky-punch-for-astrazeneca-and-oxford-idUSKBN28327Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astraz... Even now, the lower bound of 95% C.I. around efficacy with two doses is 63% which is quite low, relative to the headlines: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-sustained-protection-76-during-3-month-interval https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vacc... I'm not a troll, just a critic of a lab and a U.K. government that fudged some data because they needed a PR win. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-coronavirus-front-runner https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-... "I hope we can improve on those timelines and come to your rescue.” - Sarah Gilbert That kind of hubris made it hard to admit process errors and low efficacy rates.
ghaff 6y ago
The main EU issue was that they weren't getting supplies they said they were promised, right? [1] And, presumably, if the supplies are short, there wouldn't be enough available near-term in the US to make a difference. (Added: And, right, there were testing issues in US trials early-on.) [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/02/01/962705729/eu-to-get-9-million-more-astrazeneca-doses-after-supply-row https://www.npr.org/2021/02/01/962705729/eu-to-get-9-million...
- the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
  The negative public perception of AZ in the EU is independent of delivery issues. Those exist with most vaccine manufacturers as the EU did not introduce export controls.
alistairSH 6y ago
Astra Zeneca bungled their FDA trials in 2020. They went from being one of the most promising vaccines to an also-ran. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/business/covid-vaccine-oxford-astrazeneca.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/business/covid-vaccine-ox...
- mchusma 6y ago
  This is basically a hit piece, and this type of journalism really hurts us because it misses the big picture. The reality is that Astrazeca ran full trials which proved safety and efficacy in peer reviewed journals. Were things a bit messy? Yes! Its a pandemic, things didn't go perfectly. But is there any scientifically based reason to believe that the vaccine is not safe and effective against death? Their studies categorically proved that.
  - phatfish 6y ago
    It's not a hit piece. There was a mistake during the trial with dosage, and instead of coming clean in their main announcement and explaining what happened it was obfuscated by the "half dose" story. This just caused confusion and provided ammunition for critics. It's great the vaccine is as effective and safe as predicted, but fumbling the most important clinical trial in the companies history reflected very poorly on their competence.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    Uh, they completely botched the dosing in during the trial. Not just a little, but off by 50%. Then results weren't as expected (those on lower dose fared better) and they had no explanation. That's not a "full trial which proved safety and efficacy".
whycombagator 6y ago
The U.K. like to big up/get behind their own. Relevancy on the world stage in anything is big over there, AstraZeneca (AZ) makes the U.K. relevant. Remember there’s also Brexit & having a “winning” vaccine produced by a U.K. company & university is clearly a huge deal. In the EU AZ is under delivering doses at present[0], also they had that whole trial dosing mishap. In the US AZ wasn’t as fast at delivering a vaccine as Pfizer & Moderna & AZ isn’t a US company, but Moderna & Pfizer are. So not really a shock that they get most of the buzz in the US. Interestingly the US has ordered more AZ doses than any other vaccine & AZ is the most ordered/purchased vaccine worldwide[1]. It’s no surprise to me that countries are hyping up their own products and/or getting them approved first. As for the EU, they are certain to be sore given the lack of doses they’ve been able to acquire & their vaccination strategy in general. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964197 [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/contracts-purchasing-agreements.html https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-glo...
robotmay 6y ago
The EU seems to keep bringing focus back onto the over-65 efficacy. The German government has said it shouldn’t be used on over-65s, Poland has now followed, and Macron has been out in the press regurgitating incorrect statistics he misread somewhere (saying it’s only 10% effective, rather than the correct stat being that the age group made up around 10% of test subjects). Personally I think the UK approach is the way to go and that the EU being cautious might backfire. We know the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is pretty safe and the UK has been giving it to over-65s quite happily. If it does turn out that it’s less effective, then we’ll still have gotten some efficacy across the vast majority of our population much quicker, and probably not added to the deaths. If it turns out that it’s just as effective as on everyone else, then the EU will have lost time yet again and have left their older population at risk for longer.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Countries that have a supply of Pfizer/Moderna as well as AZ can understandably be more cautious with AZ to over-65 at least early on. It’s just a matter of assigning the right vaccine to the respective groups, e.g Pfizer to the elderly and AZ to healthcare workers. In a month or two there will be more data, but in Q2 there will also be more supply of Pfizer and Moderna in the EU. The EU can be cautious with AZ to elderly now because it can afford to due to large quantities of rna vaccine. A few thousand elderly will die waiting for the slow buildup of rna delivieries while AZ could be made available. That’s the obvious drawback of this caution.
  - krzyk 6y ago
    > Pfizer to the elderly and AZ to healthcare workers. With Pfizers (and Moderna) ~95% efficacy and AZ at 60% I would give AZ to only those that want to jump the line or as the last resort. You don't want doctors to spread COVID (40% vs 5% that can spread is huge). Poland wants to give AZ to teachers, a group that has contact with many children (which have contact with their families) - this is poor thinking. AZ should go to people that don't have much contact with others, e.g. unemployed or volunteers.
  - orra 6y ago
lbeltrame 6y ago
> in the US it is not playing much of a role That's because the FDA is waiting for the completion of AZ's trial in the US. This should be definitely better run than the meta-trials done elsewhere and give clearer numbers. A likely readout would be in March, or April.
- adventured 6y ago
  It's also because the US has numerous vaccine options for 2021 and eg the EU does not. The Oxford vaccine simply isn't that important to the US accordingly. We have Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, along with Oxford. The US will end up with far more vaccine options than it needs. The EU is desperate for any vaccine supply because of how they massively screwed everything up. The US by contrast is going to be flooded with vaccine supply and is barely breaking a sweat. Given the US didn't even put forth its best effort and it's showing up the EU so dramatically, you know the EU really botched things.
  - harry8 6y ago
    >The Oxford vaccine simply isn't that important to the US Beg to differ there. We need to vaccinate the world. This is in the interests of the US. (Consider mutation etc). The analysis of the Oxford vaccine is that it is much easier to perform the logistics because of the significantly more modest refrigerations requirements. The US needs 7 billion to be vaccinated as much as anyone is my understanding.
    - zhte415 6y ago
      It is also quite cheap, which as well as needing less refrigeration boggles my mind why the EU sat on their hands for 3 months trying to negotiate down an already cheap cost. $140 billion to vaccinate the world is not a large cost, and many nations will choose (have chosen) their own solutions, for the remaining, perhaps $60bn, that's not a large amount for developed nations to pay compared to the costs of reduced trade and potential further mutations, that's $60-$100 per person in developed countries in cash, or more likely however countries want to amortise that.
oska 6y ago
Reporting from Australia I think the general feeling here about the AZ vaccine is positive, as we feel fortunate to have access to a vaccine that is robust (doesn't require an extreme cold chain) and, most importantly, that we can manufacture ourselves. Not just for Australia but also for the Pacific nations in our area (e.g. Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tahiti, etc). I can't speak for India but I imagine that they are happy to have access to this vaccine as well, as they are similarly going to manufacture it, and to a scale that will dwarf everyone else. And it not needing a special cold chain is even more of a plus in India of course.
iainmerrick 6y ago
The EU’s current behavior is very sad to see, when up to now they had seemed much more sensible than the UK government. AZ had production problems in the EU -- perfectly understandable as it’s a complex operation and they started somewhat later than in the UK. The EU Commission responded by threatening legal action (??) and almost bypassing the hard-won Northern Ireland border agreement (!!??!!) before backtracking. Ridiculously petty, dangerous, and does nothing to solve the problem and save lives.
- renaudg 6y ago
  I've found UK media coverage of this row disturbingly one-sided (even amongst pro-EU journalists) You may want to read this for a more balanced view : https://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/dragging-astrazeneca-to-inevitable-compromise-in-covid-19-vaccine-row-1.4471383 https://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/dragging-a... It was really AZ's screw up. The fact is that the EU had a contract with AZ that explicitly required the use of UK plants for fulfilling the EU's orders if need be. But the problem is that AZ had also promised the UK it would have priority over the goods produced on its soil...
  - iainmerrick 6y ago
    I’ll take a look, thanks! The threat to invoke the border protocol was absolutely shocking to me, so I’m very interested to learn more of the background. Edit to add: for others reading this thread, here’s an article from the same site about that border protocol dispute: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/shellshock-in-brussels-after-commission-blunder-1.4474558 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/shellshock-in-bruss...
neilsense 6y ago
Let's not forget it's also essentially been "given" to India so it can be mass-produced cheaply for those countries that can't afford it full cost. The UK has many issues, and it's gone through a horrible few years but, in the case of the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine specifically, I am incredible proud of what they have done.

caffeine 6y ago

My perception of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is that their credibility is compromised. I take claims of its efficacy with a similar dose of salt to claims about the Russian and Chinese vaccines. Reason is that early on they were rushing data and approvals on grounds of national pride, in a very similar way to the Chinese and Russian authorities. Pfizer and Moderna seem to have been more thorough.

LawnGnome 6y ago
Interestingly, the interim Sputnik results were published in the Lancet today, and they're good: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00234-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... I don't disagree about the process, though.
orra 6y ago
This is nonsense. It's not about national pride. The UK authorised Pfizer first. We knew back in December how effective just one dose[1] of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is, at stopping death. See figure 2 on page 28. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
- caffeine 6y ago
  The link you posted is about the Moderna vaccine, not AstraZeneca. I have no qualms with the Moderna vaccine, I consider it and the Pfizer to be the most effective and least questionable.
  - orra 6y ago
    Argh, you're right. I badly skimmed over the JCVI document.
neilsense 6y ago
What you're saying makes no sense. Comparing the UK to China/Russia based on what? We have some of the best research and industrial pharma in the world and we don't hold scientists hostage if they say the wrong things. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. I can only believe you are trolling in some way, or have you own nationalist pride over Pfizer/Moderna.
- caffeine 6y ago
  They never did a proper phase 3 trial. Instead they did two half-trials, with different doses. Initially they pretended this was done on purpose, and claimed 90% efficacy: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 Later it came out this was an accident and cover-up, spun as a lucky discovery: https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-da... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-dosing/dosing-error-turns-into-lucky-punch-for-astrazeneca-and-oxford-idUSKBN28327Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astraz... Even now, the lower bound of 95% C.I. around efficacy with two doses is 63% which is quite low, relative to the headlines: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-sustained-protection-76-during-3-month-interval https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-oxford-coronavirus-vacc... I'm not a troll, just a critic of a lab and a U.K. government that fudged some data because they needed a PR win. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-coronavirus-front-runner https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-... "I hope we can improve on those timelines and come to your rescue.” - Sarah Gilbert That kind of hubris made it hard to admit process errors and low efficacy rates.

ghaff 6y ago

The main EU issue was that they weren't getting supplies they said they were promised, right? [1] And, presumably, if the supplies are short, there wouldn't be enough available near-term in the US to make a difference. (Added: And, right, there were testing issues in US trials early-on.) [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/02/01/962705729/eu-to-get-9-million-more-astrazeneca-doses-after-supply-row https://www.npr.org/2021/02/01/962705729/eu-to-get-9-million...

the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
The negative public perception of AZ in the EU is independent of delivery issues. Those exist with most vaccine manufacturers as the EU did not introduce export controls.

alistairSH 6y ago

Astra Zeneca bungled their FDA trials in 2020. They went from being one of the most promising vaccines to an also-ran. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/business/covid-vaccine-oxford-astrazeneca.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/business/covid-vaccine-ox...

mchusma 6y ago
This is basically a hit piece, and this type of journalism really hurts us because it misses the big picture. The reality is that Astrazeca ran full trials which proved safety and efficacy in peer reviewed journals. Were things a bit messy? Yes! Its a pandemic, things didn't go perfectly. But is there any scientifically based reason to believe that the vaccine is not safe and effective against death? Their studies categorically proved that.
- phatfish 6y ago
  It's not a hit piece. There was a mistake during the trial with dosage, and instead of coming clean in their main announcement and explaining what happened it was obfuscated by the "half dose" story. This just caused confusion and provided ammunition for critics. It's great the vaccine is as effective and safe as predicted, but fumbling the most important clinical trial in the companies history reflected very poorly on their competence.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Uh, they completely botched the dosing in during the trial. Not just a little, but off by 50%. Then results weren't as expected (those on lower dose fared better) and they had no explanation. That's not a "full trial which proved safety and efficacy".

whycombagator 6y ago

The U.K. like to big up/get behind their own. Relevancy on the world stage in anything is big over there, AstraZeneca (AZ) makes the U.K. relevant. Remember there’s also Brexit & having a “winning” vaccine produced by a U.K. company & university is clearly a huge deal. In the EU AZ is under delivering doses at present[0], also they had that whole trial dosing mishap. In the US AZ wasn’t as fast at delivering a vaccine as Pfizer & Moderna & AZ isn’t a US company, but Moderna & Pfizer are. So not really a shock that they get most of the buzz in the US. Interestingly the US has ordered more AZ doses than any other vaccine & AZ is the most ordered/purchased vaccine worldwide[1]. It’s no surprise to me that countries are hyping up their own products and/or getting them approved first. As for the EU, they are certain to be sore given the lack of doses they’ve been able to acquire & their vaccination strategy in general. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964197 [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/contracts-purchasing-agreements.html https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-glo...

robotmay 6y ago

The EU seems to keep bringing focus back onto the over-65 efficacy. The German government has said it shouldn’t be used on over-65s, Poland has now followed, and Macron has been out in the press regurgitating incorrect statistics he misread somewhere (saying it’s only 10% effective, rather than the correct stat being that the age group made up around 10% of test subjects). Personally I think the UK approach is the way to go and that the EU being cautious might backfire. We know the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is pretty safe and the UK has been giving it to over-65s quite happily. If it does turn out that it’s less effective, then we’ll still have gotten some efficacy across the vast majority of our population much quicker, and probably not added to the deaths. If it turns out that it’s just as effective as on everyone else, then the EU will have lost time yet again and have left their older population at risk for longer.

alkonaut 6y ago
Countries that have a supply of Pfizer/Moderna as well as AZ can understandably be more cautious with AZ to over-65 at least early on. It’s just a matter of assigning the right vaccine to the respective groups, e.g Pfizer to the elderly and AZ to healthcare workers. In a month or two there will be more data, but in Q2 there will also be more supply of Pfizer and Moderna in the EU. The EU can be cautious with AZ to elderly now because it can afford to due to large quantities of rna vaccine. A few thousand elderly will die waiting for the slow buildup of rna delivieries while AZ could be made available. That’s the obvious drawback of this caution.
- krzyk 6y ago
  > Pfizer to the elderly and AZ to healthcare workers. With Pfizers (and Moderna) ~95% efficacy and AZ at 60% I would give AZ to only those that want to jump the line or as the last resort. You don't want doctors to spread COVID (40% vs 5% that can spread is huge). Poland wants to give AZ to teachers, a group that has contact with many children (which have contact with their families) - this is poor thinking. AZ should go to people that don't have much contact with others, e.g. unemployed or volunteers.
- orra 6y ago

lbeltrame 6y ago

> in the US it is not playing much of a role That's because the FDA is waiting for the completion of AZ's trial in the US. This should be definitely better run than the meta-trials done elsewhere and give clearer numbers. A likely readout would be in March, or April.

adventured 6y ago
It's also because the US has numerous vaccine options for 2021 and eg the EU does not. The Oxford vaccine simply isn't that important to the US accordingly. We have Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, along with Oxford. The US will end up with far more vaccine options than it needs. The EU is desperate for any vaccine supply because of how they massively screwed everything up. The US by contrast is going to be flooded with vaccine supply and is barely breaking a sweat. Given the US didn't even put forth its best effort and it's showing up the EU so dramatically, you know the EU really botched things.
- harry8 6y ago
  >The Oxford vaccine simply isn't that important to the US Beg to differ there. We need to vaccinate the world. This is in the interests of the US. (Consider mutation etc). The analysis of the Oxford vaccine is that it is much easier to perform the logistics because of the significantly more modest refrigerations requirements. The US needs 7 billion to be vaccinated as much as anyone is my understanding.
  - zhte415 6y ago
    It is also quite cheap, which as well as needing less refrigeration boggles my mind why the EU sat on their hands for 3 months trying to negotiate down an already cheap cost. $140 billion to vaccinate the world is not a large cost, and many nations will choose (have chosen) their own solutions, for the remaining, perhaps $60bn, that's not a large amount for developed nations to pay compared to the costs of reduced trade and potential further mutations, that's $60-$100 per person in developed countries in cash, or more likely however countries want to amortise that.

oska 6y ago

Reporting from Australia I think the general feeling here about the AZ vaccine is positive, as we feel fortunate to have access to a vaccine that is robust (doesn't require an extreme cold chain) and, most importantly, that we can manufacture ourselves. Not just for Australia but also for the Pacific nations in our area (e.g. Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tahiti, etc). I can't speak for India but I imagine that they are happy to have access to this vaccine as well, as they are similarly going to manufacture it, and to a scale that will dwarf everyone else. And it not needing a special cold chain is even more of a plus in India of course.

iainmerrick 6y ago

The EU’s current behavior is very sad to see, when up to now they had seemed much more sensible than the UK government. AZ had production problems in the EU -- perfectly understandable as it’s a complex operation and they started somewhat later than in the UK. The EU Commission responded by threatening legal action (??) and almost bypassing the hard-won Northern Ireland border agreement (!!??!!) before backtracking. Ridiculously petty, dangerous, and does nothing to solve the problem and save lives.

renaudg 6y ago
I've found UK media coverage of this row disturbingly one-sided (even amongst pro-EU journalists) You may want to read this for a more balanced view : https://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/dragging-astrazeneca-to-inevitable-compromise-in-covid-19-vaccine-row-1.4471383 https://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/dragging-a... It was really AZ's screw up. The fact is that the EU had a contract with AZ that explicitly required the use of UK plants for fulfilling the EU's orders if need be. But the problem is that AZ had also promised the UK it would have priority over the goods produced on its soil...
- iainmerrick 6y ago
  I’ll take a look, thanks! The threat to invoke the border protocol was absolutely shocking to me, so I’m very interested to learn more of the background. Edit to add: for others reading this thread, here’s an article from the same site about that border protocol dispute: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/shellshock-in-brussels-after-commission-blunder-1.4474558 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/shellshock-in-bruss...

neilsense 6y ago

Let's not forget it's also essentially been "given" to India so it can be mass-produced cheaply for those countries that can't afford it full cost. The UK has many issues, and it's gone through a horrible few years but, in the case of the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine specifically, I am incredible proud of what they have done.