India To Get 100 Million Astra Vaccine Shots by Next Month (bloomberg.com) 49
The world's largest vaccine maker is ramping up production of AstraZeneca Plc's Covid-19 shot, aiming to have 100 million doses ready by December for an inoculation drive that could begin across India that same month. From a report: If final-stage trial data show AstraZeneca's candidate gives effective protection from the virus, the Serum Institute of India -- which is partnered to produce at least one billion doses -- may get emergency authorization from New Delhi by December, said Adar Poonawalla, chief executive officer of the family-owned firm based in the western city of Pune. That initial amount will go to India, Poonawalla said in an interview on Thursday. Full approval early next year will allow distribution on a 50-50 basis with the South Asian nation and Covax, the World Health Organization-backed body that's purchasing shots for poor nations. Serum, which has tied up with five developers, has so far made 40 million doses of AstraZeneca's vaccine in the past two months and aims to start manufacturing Novavax's contender soon.
Sounds like a lot but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given India's population and density, how much of a difference is 100 million immunizations going to do?
Of course I realize they aren't planning to stop there, but it is going to take a long time at that rate to get coverage sufficient to stop the spread of the virus.
Still, I hope they keep good records. It will be very interesting to see the outcome statistics.
Re:Sounds like a lot but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He's just pissed that shithole India has a vaccine before the mighty USA does.
Re: (Score:2)
100 million in December to vaccine health workers and then some vulnerable/old people can make a big difference yes
Re: (Score:3)
That's where an epidemiologist would be useful.
My take, 100M into a population of 1.3B is ~7.7%
By now we know in what circumstances people more likely to become exposed and/or spread the virus, including asymptomatic carriers.
So you'd think that vaccinating people in those groups would have an outsize effect on infections given the time in question.
So .. healthcare workers, retail workers, people in group housing, factory workers that can't distance would be where I'd start.
This is all an area where the US
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's where an epidemiologist would be useful.
Yes indeed. Too many people take an incredibly simplistic view of vaccines. It's like oh, boy the vaccine! no more 'rona!
What I am looking for is:
At what rate does the vaccine stop new infections?
At what rate does the vaccine stop symptoms among those who are already infected?
What percentage of those vaccinated who had been infection still retain the virus and are capable of transmitting it?
And, of course, what rate of serious side effects occur. For the record I don't consider fever and mus
Re: Sounds like a lot but... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to immunize the wealthy.
Re: (Score:1)
The west is paying and they think those countries are way over populated, it all seems really odd and completely opposite to the reality of wars for profit in brown skin people countries. Now they want to save them, when they were happy to blow them up. It looks extremely suspect, that the third world gets it first, after the first world pays for it, when the first world consider the third world to be grossly overpopulated. All really, really odd. Generosity does not feature in well with exposed blatant war
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really fault countries for putting their national interests ahead of other nations.
In a "one world government" or Star Trek Federation scenario than absolutely, everyone should have equal access to vaccines, but that's not us.
How they implement it is the key! (Score:2)
While giving it to everyone is the best method, if that is not possible you can provide the limited supply in a smarter way.
People who are in highest risks, people who jobs is in contact with people, people who need to move around different communities.
If you are smart on who you give it to, you can have a lot of good from a limited supply.
Re:Should be vaccinating right NOW. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's not effective, nothing of value was lost.
One word: Thalidomide.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An ineffective medicine can be much, much worse than harmless.
Suppose 1% of patients develops a permanent disability. You almost certainly wouldn't see that in Phase 1 testing, and there's a good chance you wouldn't see that in Phase 2 either. Now you skip Phase 3 and right to market, administering a hundred million doses...
Congratulations. You've just crippled a million people, and have to provide lifetime medical care to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose 1% of patients develops a permanent disability. You almost certainly wouldn't see that in Phase 1 testing, and there's a good chance you wouldn't see that in Phase 2 either. Now you skip Phase 3 and right to market, administering a hundred million doses...
All of the candidate vaccines are now well into Stage III trials, the kind that are paused if even one serious side effect shows up in a patient. Under today's emergency conditions, these vaccines should be released immediately.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they should be released when Phase III trials are completed. Either Phase III is done and dusted or you're relying on Phase 2 trials, which only show that clinical effectiveness and safety are *plausible*; they're not enough to tell you whether it's a good idea to prescribe the drug, and if so, for whom.
You could argue that under the circumstances there should be a streamlined Phase 3 with more of the safety testing deferred to after it has been distributed. That's a reasonable idea, but impractical
Re: Should be vaccinating right NOW. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for splitting up phase 2 and 3 is that combining them wastes money. If cost is no object, then sure, combine them and it'd be just as safe. Cutting a phase 3 trial short because it has some encouraging preliminary results is a different kettle of fish.
Re: (Score:3)
See Sinovac, https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10... [cnn.com]
The official word is the person's suicide is unrelated to the vaccine, but given the sensitivity of how important this is, they're not being nearly clear and up front enough to ensure that conclusion is entirely truthful.
Re:Hmm Something doesnt add up (Score:5, Insightful)
> Dr Fauci stated that there wouldn't be a vaccine this year, and that Trump was lying in the debates.
When did he say that, and what exactly did he say?
We've known for quite a long time that the results would come out in November or December, barring some big unexpected event. I think it was three or four months ago I posted here there was at least 96% chance of at least one vaccine being approved in November or December. I calculated that based on we know how long phase 2 and phase 3 take, and we know the success rate of phase 2 and phase 3 vaccines generally. We've long known it would be November or December.
Maybe what you're thinking of is somebody said it was unlikely one would be approved by election day. Yep, we've known that because we knew it would be November or December and there isn't much of November that comes before election day. :)
> now suddenly theres 4 vaccines ready, to go?
Nope, still zero approved. This article is about they are still doing what they've been doing for months - producing a vaccine so it will be ready IF the study results are good and it's approved.
Re: (Score:2)
They had to wait for Bill Gates to scale up his nanite yields.
"We're talking probably April" (Score:2)
Also:
So as of this week he's now saying that while the vaccine might be available sooner but that Americans will hold off.
I have to admit I'm cautious. There's multiple vaccines in development, whoever's first to market gets the prize. That makes me nervous, as does Pfizer warning people that the Vaccine might make you sick for several days.
As for saying "Trump
Making 600 million doses takes time (Score:2)
Quoting the sentence you're referring to, in the article you linked:
"his estimate of when a vaccine will be available to all Americans: 'Weâ(TM)re talking probably by April.'"
He was asked when 600 million doses would be *available to all Americans*. He said "by April" (meaning not after April, might could be March).
Approval in November or December. Then we have to produce and distribute 600 million doses. (The leading candidates are two doses per person.)
Making and distributing 600 million doses take
Re: (Score:3)
Trump implied that people would be getting the vaccine this year. It's unlikely that many Americans will have it this year, only those at the greatest risk. Widespread vaccination won't happen until the spring.
If it works is probably more down to how effective the anti-vaxx nonsense is. Russia is pumping it, trying to slow down recovery, as well as the home-grown idiots.
It's sounds like Pfizer's vaccine (Score:2)
I'm also still nervous about how fast these vaccines are being pushed through. There's too much money on the line, not only from the drug companies but from the economy in general.
That said it'll go to healthcare workers and the military first (the the Military getting it by mandate) so th
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the Corona vaccine have to express the viral proteins inside cells BTW? Both the mRNA and Adenovirus variants seem to do this. Most existing vaccines seem to just dump recombinant produced antigens (or inactivated virii) in the blood with some adjuvants and let the body figure it out ... why does that not work for Corona?
Re: (Score:1)
I am wondering the same thing - although the mRNA approach strikes me as a lot scarier than how Oxford/AstraZeneca are doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
This type of vaccine is extremely flexible, because you use the body's cells as the protein factory. As a bonus, you duplicate what goes on in an actual infection more closely, without the risk of actual infection. You can print out the mRNA from a text file and either encapsulate it or install it in a virus carrier.
Traditional killed, inactivated and weakened virus vaccines require you to handle large quantities of the actual virus. This makes research and production more complicated, and also carries the
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why the new approaches are attractive ... but there is comfort in the tried and true.
There's a ton of experience with recombinant antigen vaccines out there. With all the money floating around labs could try a lot of different antigens in parallel and maybe leave the experimentation with mRNA/Ad5 for a time when you don't need to vaccinate such a large number of people in a rush? Is there any specific reason they would not work for Corona?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably. Remember that the COVID-19 (SARS-2) vaccines didn't start from zero in February. They're modifications of SARS-1 and MERS vaccines that have been under development for a couple decades, so quite a bit of the hard work was already done, and the choices various companies have made are motivated by a lot of existing work. It's not a coincidence everyone is targeting the spike protein, for example, and the choice of target is very important for a successful vaccine.
Here's an article by an actual medic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My dog died of a placebo, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
"Over 90%" isn't vague. 90% indicates the lower bound of the confidence interval. The distribution is skewed so the upper bound is 100%. As more people in the trial get COVID the confidence interval will narrow.
All of the current phase III trials were designed with planned assessments partway through. IIRC most or all of them were planned so if the vaccine was extremely effective (>90%) the first readout would be positive, then there would be additional reads for more conservative efficacies. The trials
Shots (Score:1)
>"India To Get 100 Million Astra Vaccine Shots"
Can we PLEASE use the correct terms? They are not "shots", they are injections, of a vaccine, performed with a syringe. You were not shot with a shot using a shot. Shooting is something you do with a gun, arrow, or projectile. "Shot" is the past-tense of "shoot" (or the pellets expended by a shot gun).
And the above should be "India To Get 100 Million Astra Vaccine Doses." It really isn't that difficult.
Re:Shots (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe the line up 1.5 fluid ounce doses in little glasses on the bar and the patients "do shots"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also definition 1E: a medical or narcotics injection
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to consult a dictionary before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You might want to consult a dictionary before posting."
Being in the dictionary doesn't make something proper. People incorrectly use the word "shot" so much, it is necessary to put it in the dictionary so it is possible to decode what people mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Shashdotter: I'm right, the dictionary is wrong.
Do a bit of research. "Shot" has always had a lot of meanings. Some of them precede the western use of firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Shashdotter: I'm right, the dictionary is wrong."
I didn't say the dictionary is wrong. "Do" is also in the dictionary. But you don't "do the car." You "wash" the car or "repair" the car or "drive" the car, etc. There are better and worse choices of words. Using "shot" to mean injection, vaccine, dose, and/or syringe is poor word selection.
Safety Equipments (Score:1)