Coronavirus
- This topic has 1,592 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Monoclonal antibodies are a lab-made version of the body’s natural infection-fighting proteins. They are delivered by intravenous infusion.
COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies have been approved for emergency use in the United States, and were notably used to treat then-President Donald Trump.
I think that may be of some interest though, if correct.
We now have reports questioning the efficiency of the vaccines and it is difficult to ascertain with some accuracy what is the truth of the matter.
The latest is from Germany with the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) assessment to show the AstraZeneca vaccine to be only 8% effective among the over-65s.
The German government also voiced concerns about AstraZeneca’s data reporting: “It has been known since the autumn that fewer seniors were included in the trials supplied by AstraZeneca than the trials of other manufacturers.”
With the new mutations and those overly-optimistic predictions from pharmaceutical corporations, this pandemic may well linger for a long time.
For the poorer nations it will be 2024 before a vaccine campaign bears fruit.
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2021/01/global-pandemic-but-no-global-vaccine.html
Covid: Archbishops call for daily prayer after 100,000 UK deaths
In the name o’ the ‘wee man’ as we say in Scotland.
“The latest is from Germany with the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) assessment to show the AstraZeneca vaccine to be only 8% effective among the over-65s.”
This could be just a dodgy figure leaked by someone who got their facts wrong. The German govt and Astrazenica are saying the 8% figure refers to the percentage of people taking part in the tests who were over 65.
Anyway, why should it only be 8% effective for older people?
Not that I trust the pharmaceutical industry but this does seem to be a bit of a stretch of credulity.
Because of EU shortages there is a renewed call for suspending the patents on the vaccine.
So far, however, no corporation has released the rights. A Finnish MEP argued in the European Parliament that three months’ delay in the vaccination campaign meant hundreds of thousands of additional deaths.
Re the efficacy of the AstraZeneca Vaccine_
“In a written response to the German media reports, AstraZeneca described the claims as “completely incorrect”.
Now, the German health ministry has admitted there is no data to suggest the vaccine only has 8% efficacy in older people.
In a statement on Tuesday, quoted by several media outlets, the ministry said: “At first glance, it seems that the reports have mixed up two things: about 8% of those tested in the AstraZeneca efficacy study were between 56 and 69, only 3-4% over 70.“”
AztraZeneca seem to be trying hard to be the buccaneering company of the type that the Brexiteers said would be possible after Britain left the EU.
First, they fiddled the results of their tests and had to do some more (causing a delay in getting it out). Now they are trying to renege on a contract with the EU, because they’ve sold the same batch to two different buyers.
Is this just the action of a rogue company or is it capitalist business as normal?
That suggestion on the site of the German television channel that the patents for the vaccines be suspended is presented in this way:
”There is a way out of the dilemma, and that is to share the patents. What may sound like brute socialism is an adequate remedy in a global health crisis.”
Yes it does sound like that. The abolition of all and any private property rights over production will indeed mean the abolition of so-called “intellectual property” rights such as patents and copyright.
Forward to brute socialism !
The capitalist ideologues were boasting how the system worked. That because of the business incentives of capitalism, vaccines were developed in record time (despite they garnered government subsidies and were assured of a guaranteed market for the product)
Now are they taking responsiblity for the failure to manufacture and distribute sufficient quantities of vaccine? Not at all.
Patent laws, intellectual ownership copyright regulation, means that facilities for turning out the vaccine is not being utilised to the full.
The urgency of the pandemic takes second place to the profits of Big Pharma.
I merely speculate, but i am sure there are investors rubbing their hands in glee that coronavirus mutations are occurring around the world and that the vaccine is only temporary and requires perhaps an annual boosting because it means regular upgrading to new improved vaccines as we see with the the flu jabs. A regular future market to always tap into.
But if the Oxford jab is as you say, we can’t choose. We have to take what we’re given when called.
Yet again confusion over vaccine efficiency still continues.
Jim Naismith, professor of structural biology at the University of Oxford and director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, said: “It is really important to read what has been said, German scientists conclude that the Oxford /AZ vaccine is safe and it is effective for under 65s. Their assessment is that effectiveness is not yet demonstrated for over 65s. They have not said the vaccine is ineffective for over 65s.”
I daresay they have to say this because of the lower proportion of older people in the tests. Could there be any medical justification for saying that you suddenly reach 65 and the vaccine is no longer effective? Sounds like witchcraft. If there’s any truth in it, it will surely be on some kind of sliding age scale.
Anyway, it’s what I’ve had so I’m stuck with it now. If I get the virus despite the jab I’ll never know if I had an 82% chance of getting it, a 30% chance of getting it or some other percent chance of getting it through carelessness. Same the other way round if I don’t get it – would it be because of the jabs or simply through precaution? Best to boost your chances of not getting it as best you can anyway.
The chances of such confusion in a socialist society would hopefully be far less through more rigorous testing of vaccines and the like.
‘The chances of such confusion in a socialist society would hopefully be far less through more rigorous testing of vaccines and the like.’
There wasn’t time for rigorous testing. Would socialism wait an extra year and a million more deaths before approving a vaccine? Hardly. If you want a vaccine fast, you have to accept some unknowns. That would be just as true in socialism as now.
I think the real problem is the roll-out delays. Where i live it won’t begin until 14 February.
Even within a sophisticated health service network as in Europe, the pharmaceutical corporations are unable to ramp up production and fulfil their delivery promises.
As someone said the slow-down costs lives.
We now have the possibility of the EU restricting the export of the vaccine.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-01-eu-vaccine-exports.html
TM, it looks as if the AstraZeneca vaccine will provide protection for the over 65s. It’s just seems to be that they didn’t do wide enough testing to meet the level of evidence required by some licensing authorities but this evidence will probably emerge in due course. So I wouldn’t refuse it if that’s the one you’re offered. In any event it won’t harm you and will be better than nothing.
Another bungle by this world-beating, buccaneering British firm (though I notice that the flag-waving media have begun to downgrade it to being a British/Swedish firm).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.