7 ms·

The sad part is that AstraZeneca chose to sell the vaccine at cost, making no profit. This amount of negative publicity with no good reason will make them (and

by 0-_-0 6y ago

The sad part is that AstraZeneca chose to sell the vaccine at cost, making no profit. This amount of negative publicity with no good reason will make them (and others) think twice about such a gesture.

hannob 6y ago
Like half of the bad publicity for AZ is their own fault. The blood clotting issue is not, but the bad studies and the poor communication totally are. Getting a warning letter from an US agency for publishing outdated data in a press release is quite a feat.
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  "The company says the agreed cut-off point for data was 17 February, by which time there had been 141 cases and efficacy was 79%. Within 48 hours, AstraZeneca had added more recent data. On a total of 190 cases, there was 76% efficacy (and as always 100% against severe illness and death). It’s not much of a difference." [0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-astrazeneca-vaccine-became-a-political-football-and-a-pr-disaster https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-ast...
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    Is this supposed to be some mitigation? A pharma company has a responsibility to publish accurate and up to date data. Full stop.
  - makomk 6y ago
    That baffled me. They got a huge amount of stick for measuring up to the pre-determined cutoff point, which as I understand it is the correct way to do a scientific study if you want your results to actually be valid...
    - refurb 6y ago
      From what gathered, AZ said they had final data, but hadn’t actually finished the analysis, but preliminary numbers looked similar to interim so they just used those.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      This. The reason it is risky to measure data after a predetermined stop point is that it lets human bias play a role in making conclusions. It is very subtle, but this human behavior has been a contributor to the replication crisis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
  - hannob 6y ago
    "It's not much of a difference" is a terrible excuse. This isn't about the percentage points they were off, this is about how such a thing looks in the public. When you get a warning from a gov agency that you shared outdated data that just looks terrible. Just don't do anything in a press release that could even remotely look like you're trying to cheat with your data. It's a terrible idea in a situation like this.
emptyfile 6y ago
How is that sad? Do you think the CEO and shareholders approved that deal because their hearts are so good and pure, to help humanity? No, it was to become a vaccine manuf. in a time of pandemic, to make big bucks (since at cost sales end in August this year). Oxford scientists came up with the vaccine and the deal to manufacture it with a partner. It looked like a great deal until it turned out that AZ is completely incompetent.
- hef19898 6y ago
  How is AZ incompetent? On other aspects than PR, that is. Their vaccine is working, it is sufficiently effective by anyones standard. That mRNA vaccines turned out to be better is great, but it was not sure a year ago.
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    I think incompetent is harsh, but they had a bad data submission and also a dosing error. Neither is a good look. Neither ended up being a big problem but they could’ve been.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      Yeah, that was an issue. I cannot tell how much of an issue, because I have zero experience with medical trials. As do most people, I assume, getting upset about that. Regardless, AZ got approval in the UK and from EMA in the EU. And these entities job is clinical trial assessment. Unless I am going to refuse any and all drugs and medical treatment, I will have to trust e.g. EMA that the stuff I take when being sick is safe and working as intended.
      - peytn 6y ago
        I’ve got a little bit of FDA experience, but of course no COVID-19 EUA experience. Based on what we submitted to the FDA and the comments we received, I would personally think it most likely there were many issues with AZ’s materials, at least as far as their attempts to seek approval from the FDA went.
hyko 6y ago
Yeah, $20 a shot vs $3 a shot buys a lot of influence. Still, it’s good that someone stepped up the the plate, otherwise most people on earth would remain unvaccinated.
- akie 6y ago
  What would also help is if the UK and the US would export vaccine to other countries, like the rest of the world does. Sharing is caring? EDIT: https://www.statista.com/chart/24555/vaccine-doses-produced-and-exported/ https://www.statista.com/chart/24555/vaccine-doses-produced-...
  - hyko 6y ago
    Well...not really. The UK manufacturing capacity is tiny from a global perspective. The EU tried to scapegoat the UK for their failure to run an efficient procurement, but that was just irrational politicking. The U.S. obviously has more manufacturing capacity, but like the UK it basically has no chance of dealing with the pandemic without mass vaccination, so exports are a political non starter. What was really required was a globally coordinated response to the design, test, manufacture, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, through the WHO/CEPI with the backing of the security council members. Unfortunately with the major countries locked in various levels of sub-explosive warfare with each other (and our international institutions gravely weakened*) we've ended up with a scramble powered by commerce and nationalism. Edit: *through malice and incompetence
    - akie 6y ago
      > so exports are a political non-starter ...in the US and the UK. In the end it's also a reflection of what is important to a nation. Should the strong help the weak? Is it every man for themselves? Thank you for making my point. I think pointing to "international organizations" to do something, when you could have done something yourself, is a weak argument.
      - ghaff 6y ago
kzrdude 6y ago
You say they chose, but wasn't this a condition that came from Oxford in negotiations?
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  "Citing the attack from Macron and unfounded accusations over safety and efficacy, Bell [0] said the company could re-think its philanthropic stance. “There’s a point at which AstraZeneca could just say, ‘you’ve got to be joking, we’re going to stop [charging cost price] now because we’re not getting any credit for what we’re doing.’ The share price has gone down, not up. We’re making more vaccines than everybody else. This is a safe and effective vaccine, but nobody seems to care,” he said this week." [0]: Sir John Bell, the Oxford University professor who helped drive the vaccine’s development
  - peytn 6y ago
    > “This is a safe and effective vaccine” > Sir John Bell, the Oxford University professor who helped drive the vaccine’s development Since academics traffic in reputation, this is an example of a conflict of interest I think.
    - 0-_-0 6y ago
      The vaccine's safety and efficacy is not based on one person's opinion, it's an established fact.
s_dev 6y ago
^ This is misinformation. AZ is a profit driven pharma manufacturing company. Oxford University developed the vaccine. When Oxford licenced the vaccine to AZ -- it was at the institence of Bill Gates a major donor to Oxford and shareholder of AZ. The licence allows AZ to make a profit -- after the pandemic. Before a certain 'letter to Oxford' from Gates, Oxford was planning on giving away the vaccine to anyone who wanted to manufacture it. So I find it particularly disgusting that people are falling over themselves to associate AZ with altruism when the company isn't really even holding up it's bargain. Rumours are that AZ is constantly trying to make a profit by shipping the vaccine produced in Europe outside Europe. It can make a profit this way because it only has to sell 'at cost' but the cost varies depending on the facility that produced it giving rise to a profit incentive.
- mulvya 6y ago
  > The licence allows AZ to make a profit -- after the pandemic. After could be as early as 1st July 2021. https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-int-idUSKBN26S34D https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-astrazene...
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  The quotes in this article contradict what you're saying: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-astrazeneca-vaccine-became-a-political-football-and-a-pr-disaster https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-ast...

by 0-_-0 6y ago

hannob 6y ago

Like half of the bad publicity for AZ is their own fault. The blood clotting issue is not, but the bad studies and the poor communication totally are. Getting a warning letter from an US agency for publishing outdated data in a press release is quite a feat.

0-_-0 6y ago
"The company says the agreed cut-off point for data was 17 February, by which time there had been 141 cases and efficacy was 79%. Within 48 hours, AstraZeneca had added more recent data. On a total of 190 cases, there was 76% efficacy (and as always 100% against severe illness and death). It’s not much of a difference." [0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-astrazeneca-vaccine-became-a-political-football-and-a-pr-disaster https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-ast...
- ethanbond 6y ago
  Is this supposed to be some mitigation? A pharma company has a responsibility to publish accurate and up to date data. Full stop.
- makomk 6y ago
  That baffled me. They got a huge amount of stick for measuring up to the pre-determined cutoff point, which as I understand it is the correct way to do a scientific study if you want your results to actually be valid...
  - refurb 6y ago
    From what gathered, AZ said they had final data, but hadn’t actually finished the analysis, but preliminary numbers looked similar to interim so they just used those.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    This. The reason it is risky to measure data after a predetermined stop point is that it lets human bias play a role in making conclusions. It is very subtle, but this human behavior has been a contributor to the replication crisis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
- hannob 6y ago
  "It's not much of a difference" is a terrible excuse. This isn't about the percentage points they were off, this is about how such a thing looks in the public. When you get a warning from a gov agency that you shared outdated data that just looks terrible. Just don't do anything in a press release that could even remotely look like you're trying to cheat with your data. It's a terrible idea in a situation like this.

emptyfile 6y ago

How is that sad? Do you think the CEO and shareholders approved that deal because their hearts are so good and pure, to help humanity? No, it was to become a vaccine manuf. in a time of pandemic, to make big bucks (since at cost sales end in August this year). Oxford scientists came up with the vaccine and the deal to manufacture it with a partner. It looked like a great deal until it turned out that AZ is completely incompetent.

hef19898 6y ago
How is AZ incompetent? On other aspects than PR, that is. Their vaccine is working, it is sufficiently effective by anyones standard. That mRNA vaccines turned out to be better is great, but it was not sure a year ago.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  I think incompetent is harsh, but they had a bad data submission and also a dosing error. Neither is a good look. Neither ended up being a big problem but they could’ve been.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Yeah, that was an issue. I cannot tell how much of an issue, because I have zero experience with medical trials. As do most people, I assume, getting upset about that. Regardless, AZ got approval in the UK and from EMA in the EU. And these entities job is clinical trial assessment. Unless I am going to refuse any and all drugs and medical treatment, I will have to trust e.g. EMA that the stuff I take when being sick is safe and working as intended.
    - peytn 6y ago
      I’ve got a little bit of FDA experience, but of course no COVID-19 EUA experience. Based on what we submitted to the FDA and the comments we received, I would personally think it most likely there were many issues with AZ’s materials, at least as far as their attempts to seek approval from the FDA went.

hyko 6y ago

Yeah, $20 a shot vs $3 a shot buys a lot of influence. Still, it’s good that someone stepped up the the plate, otherwise most people on earth would remain unvaccinated.

akie 6y ago
What would also help is if the UK and the US would export vaccine to other countries, like the rest of the world does. Sharing is caring? EDIT: https://www.statista.com/chart/24555/vaccine-doses-produced-and-exported/ https://www.statista.com/chart/24555/vaccine-doses-produced-...
- hyko 6y ago
  Well...not really. The UK manufacturing capacity is tiny from a global perspective. The EU tried to scapegoat the UK for their failure to run an efficient procurement, but that was just irrational politicking. The U.S. obviously has more manufacturing capacity, but like the UK it basically has no chance of dealing with the pandemic without mass vaccination, so exports are a political non starter. What was really required was a globally coordinated response to the design, test, manufacture, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, through the WHO/CEPI with the backing of the security council members. Unfortunately with the major countries locked in various levels of sub-explosive warfare with each other (and our international institutions gravely weakened*) we've ended up with a scramble powered by commerce and nationalism. Edit: *through malice and incompetence
  - akie 6y ago
    > so exports are a political non-starter ...in the US and the UK. In the end it's also a reflection of what is important to a nation. Should the strong help the weak? Is it every man for themselves? Thank you for making my point. I think pointing to "international organizations" to do something, when you could have done something yourself, is a weak argument.
    - ghaff 6y ago

kzrdude 6y ago

You say they chose, but wasn't this a condition that came from Oxford in negotiations?

0-_-0 6y ago
"Citing the attack from Macron and unfounded accusations over safety and efficacy, Bell [0] said the company could re-think its philanthropic stance. “There’s a point at which AstraZeneca could just say, ‘you’ve got to be joking, we’re going to stop [charging cost price] now because we’re not getting any credit for what we’re doing.’ The share price has gone down, not up. We’re making more vaccines than everybody else. This is a safe and effective vaccine, but nobody seems to care,” he said this week." [0]: Sir John Bell, the Oxford University professor who helped drive the vaccine’s development
- peytn 6y ago
  > “This is a safe and effective vaccine” > Sir John Bell, the Oxford University professor who helped drive the vaccine’s development Since academics traffic in reputation, this is an example of a conflict of interest I think.
  - 0-_-0 6y ago
    The vaccine's safety and efficacy is not based on one person's opinion, it's an established fact.

s_dev 6y ago

^ This is misinformation. AZ is a profit driven pharma manufacturing company. Oxford University developed the vaccine. When Oxford licenced the vaccine to AZ -- it was at the institence of Bill Gates a major donor to Oxford and shareholder of AZ. The licence allows AZ to make a profit -- after the pandemic. Before a certain 'letter to Oxford' from Gates, Oxford was planning on giving away the vaccine to anyone who wanted to manufacture it. So I find it particularly disgusting that people are falling over themselves to associate AZ with altruism when the company isn't really even holding up it's bargain. Rumours are that AZ is constantly trying to make a profit by shipping the vaccine produced in Europe outside Europe. It can make a profit this way because it only has to sell 'at cost' but the cost varies depending on the facility that produced it giving rise to a profit incentive.

mulvya 6y ago
> The licence allows AZ to make a profit -- after the pandemic. After could be as early as 1st July 2021. https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-int-idUSKBN26S34D https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-astrazene...
0-_-0 6y ago
The quotes in this article contradict what you're saying: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-astrazeneca-vaccine-became-a-political-football-and-a-pr-disaster https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-ast...