Covid-19 #25: The Prisoner’s Dilemma

[The Anti-Targ]

Hopefully they can do a multi-strain vaccine. Assuming as a lot of people are saying now that COVID-19 is not eradicable hopefully a combo flu+COVID vaccine can be developed so that people don't need to get 2 annual jabs.

[Padraig]

Curevac and GSK are working at addressing multiple variants with one vaccine.  See here.  Although for a 2022 timeline.  I know other manufacturers like Moderna and Pfizer are looking at options too, which will be presumably much faster.  But it seems that nothing will be confirmed until they are sure that the current vaccines aren't good enough.

Quote

"Nevertheless, Pfizer and BioNTech are taking the necessary steps, making the right investments, and engaging in the appropriate conversations with regulators to be in a position to develop and seek authorization for an updated mRNA vaccine or booster once a strain that significantly reduces the protection from the vaccine is identified," Pfizer said in a statement.

Statement.

[JoannaL]

to revisit an old argument:

CNN has a report that

a) AZ has with the UK also a "best effort" agreement

b) their contract was signed on August 28, two days after the EU contract

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/17/europe/uk-astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-details-intl/index.html

so there is no reason whatsoever to prefer one party over the other in case of delivery problems.

 

The EU should sue AZ out of business.

[Filippa Eilhart]

great find Joanna!

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

to revisit an old argument:

CNN has a report that

a) AZ has with the UK also a "best effort" agreement

b) their contract was signed on August 28, two days after the EU contract

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/17/europe/uk-astrazeneca-vaccine-contract-details-intl/index.html

so there is no reason whatsoever to prefer one party over the other in case of delivery problems.

 

The EU should sue AZ out of business.

How would that help? 

[ljkeane]

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

b) their contract was signed on August 28, two days after the EU contract

Firstly, literally the first paragraph of the supply contract refers to an earlier agreement related to Astrazeneca's licence to produce the vaccine on May 17th.

The second paragraph is: 'The Purchaser through a Central Government Body is a third party beneficiary of certain rights granted in it's favour under the Licence Agreement.'

I'd also note that SeanF was right that this contract is with Astrazeneca UK unlike the EU's.

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

a) AZ has with the UK also a "best effort" agreement

Ok fine. What does best effort mean? Why does that require splitting total production in line with the orders?

Although it's redacted the UK's supply contract appears to set out specifically what the UK's supply chain is. The EU's APA doesn't but it does say Astrazeneca are supposed to tell them what it is. Going back to what I said last time I'd guess what Astrazeneca are going to say is setting up the supply chains was it's 'best effort' and it just so happens that the UK's is operating more efficiently at the moment.

[JoannaL]

27 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

How would that help? 

It doesnt help in the moment and it should not happen in the moment (will take years anyway).

[Filippa Eilhart]

13 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Firstly, literally the first paragraph of the supply contract refers to an earlier agreement related to Astrazeneca's licence to produce the vaccine on May 17th.

So what? The argument was that the UK sign the purchase agreement first. They didn't.

[ljkeane]

8 minutes ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

So what? The argument was that the UK sign the purchase agreement first. They didn't.

This is a supply contract. That doesn't mean a purchase agreement coming with 'certain rights' hadn't already been signed. Here's a press release from May 17th referring to an agreement to purchase doses.

[Filippa Eilhart]

Legally it was never an issue which contract was signed earlier, it was just a matter of perception. So is this. "Well yes this contract was signed later BUT we have a different contract which was signed even earlier".

[Padraig]

And there was an agreement reached between countries in the EU and AZ in June.  The EU took over full ownership of this agreement subsequently but I doubt they threw away the initial agreement.  See here.

These contracts seem to be announced two or 3 times, e.g. a "provisional agreement", an "agreement", "formal contract signing".

We'll only ever get close to the full truth if this did go to court.  I'm not sure it will though.  Not until this pandemic is behind us anyhow.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, ljkeane said:

 

I'd also note that SeanF was right that this contract is with Astrazeneca UK unlike the EU's.

 

As to that. Are AZ UK and AZ EU(?) completely independent companies, or are they subsidiaries of a larger corporate? I imagine the enforceability of any contract in a legal dispute will be influenced by their corporate relationship.

[williamjm]

20 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Pfizer has announced tonight that it is much less effective against the South African variant, in laboratory testing. But, it is still above the "threshold" level for a vaccine. The news report I just saw did not explain what percentage the threshold is. Would that be 50%? Shepard Smith was interviewing someone from the White House team.

I was reading this story earlier about that study which seemed fairly optimistic:

However, UTMB professor and study co-author Pei-Yong Shi said he believed the Pfizer vaccine would probably be protective against the variant.

“We don’t know what the minimum neutralising number is. We don’t have that cutoff line,” he said, adding that he suspects the immune response observed is likely to be significantly above where it needs to be to provide protection.

That is because in clinical trials, both the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar shot from Moderna conferred some protection after a single dose with an antibody response lower than the reduced levels caused by the South African variant in the laboratory study.

Maybe the neutralising number they mention in the quote is what the threshold was referring to?

[rotting sea cow]

20 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Pfizer has announced tonight that it is much less effective against the South African variant, in laboratory testing. But, it is still above the "threshold" level for a vaccine. The news report I just saw did not explain what percentage the threshold is. Would that be 50%?

They cannot know without a trial, but most likely yes. Novavax and J&J showed over 50% effective in their respective trials in SA. The only one (for now) that it showing a piss-poor performance against that variant is AZ, 22% but it could well be zero (or 50% for that matter). Sigh...

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

37 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

As to that. Are AZ UK and AZ EU(?) completely independent companies, or are they subsidiaries of a larger corporate? I imagine the enforceability of any contract in a legal dispute will be influenced by their corporate relationship.

I won’t pretend to know how corporate or contract law works entirely in the various jurisdictions, nor how EU law overlays on this.  However, if I were advising a counter party on something like this on a make or break contract like this, I would probably want to get a guarantee from the public parent (including that the public parent would use its “[reasonable best efforts]” to “cause” the contracting party and its Affiliates to perform, and also a “most favored nations” clause that said something like if the contracting party or any of its Affiliates enter into a deal on better terms those terms get offered to my client.  And maybe they did?  Haven’t read it, so couldn’t tell you.  

[Filippa Eilhart]

49 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

They cannot know without a trial, but most likely yes. Novavax and J&J showed over 50% effective in their respective trials in SA. The only one (for now) that it showing a piss-poor performance against that variant is AZ, 22% but it could well be zero (or 50% for that matter). Sigh...

 

why do we even want them to deliver it, right? 

[IheartIheartTesla]

21 hours ago, Padraig said:

Yes.  50%.  See here.  I was reading elsewhere that it will be a lot quicker to get a vaccine variant approved (compared to the origin vaccines).  Not that we are close to having one ready.

I could swear I heard a lot of experts mention they thought the mRNA based vaccines would have have efficacy against variants (I thought Fauci said it was his gut feeling as well), which just goes to show experts sometimes put a rosy picture on things when I'd just prefer the truth (to be fair, this may not be what the public wants to hear though)..

Anyway, something is better than nothing, I guess.

[williamjm]

9 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I could swear I heard a lot of experts mention they thought the mRNA based vaccines would have have efficacy against variants (I thought Fauci said it was his gut feeling as well), which just goes to show experts sometimes put a rosy picture on things when I'd just prefer the truth (to be fair, this may not be what the public wants to hear though).

Do we have any evidence the experts are wrong about that? I haven't read all the coverage about it, but in the quote I posted above the author of the study still seemed to think they would be effective.

[Padraig]

Exactly.  We have a lot of speculation right now.  There was the AZ test in South Africa which showed a poor response against mild COVID but the sample size was quite small, so the confidence wasn't high.  AZ is still saying that it could be reasonably effective against severe COVID, which ultimately is what really matters.

And now Pfizer and Moderna have said that based on lab studies, their vaccines have generated less antibodies against the South African variant.  But nobody knows what that means.  How many antibodies do you need?  (Never mind T-Cell response, which is completely unclear).  Hopefully even 66% less antibodies is enough to stop you getting severe COVID?  And lab studies aren't real life tests.

A few of the other candidates have reported lower efficacy against COVID.  Novavax reported 86% efficacy against the UK variant but 60% against the South African one.  J&J also reported a drop.  But neither are mRNA vaccines.  Curevac (a mRNA vaccine) is doing a Phase 3 trial at the moment but I don't believe it is in South Africa.  Thus, not sure how long things will remain vague.

Right now, the South Africa variant is only dominant in southern Africa I believe.  But I don't think many countries are doing enough regular testing of this.  You really want to keep this variant out of your country.

I see Biden is going to make a big contribution to COVAX.  That's great.  Not sure is that linked to COVAX's announced 1bn order for Novavax's vaccine (also today).  Wow.  On the other hand, I know others have said this but COVAX is becoming a big tease.  I don't believe it has delivered anything yet.

[Fragile Bird]

A study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, analyzing the data already out there, says the first shot of the Pfizer vaccine has an efficacy of 92.6%, and the Moderna vaccine has a similar number. However, no one knows how long that protection will last, since people then got their second shots.

They should be getting good data from the province of Quebec, vaccinations have been given since before Christmas and no second shots have been administered yet. That's over 300,000 people.