Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Montanan]

Disappointing announcement, harsh reality.

Today's news: Wed, March 31, 2021, 12:29 PM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/france-or...182915211.html

PARIS (Reuters) - President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday night ordered France into its third national lockdown and said schools would close for three weeks as he sought to push back a third wave of COVID-19 infections that threatens to overwhelm hospitals. His announcement means that movement restrictions already in place for more than a week in Paris, and some northern and southern regions, will now apply to the whole country for at least a month, from Saturday.


Snipets from his national address:

From Saturday, all of mainland France will be under a 7 p.m. curfew, working from home will be expected from those that can, with domestic travel restricted and gatherings will be limited, non-essential shops will be closed, and travel restrictions will be imposed.
This brings the whole country in line with 19 virus hot-spot territories, and cities like Paris, which have had a limited lockdown imposed for the past two weeks.

As to the future:

"Seeking to offer hope, Macron said the April lockdown and a swifter vaccination campaign may allow the slow re-opening of the country from mid-May, starting with some cultural venues, museums and the outdoor terraces of bars and restaurants." 'under strict rules' and a calendar drawn up for a progressive reopening of other facilities.

'The epidemic is accelerating, and we are likely to lose control, so we must find a new way of reacting. We must therefore set ourselves a new framework for the coming months,'

the 'British variant' for creating 'a pandemic inside a pandemic' that was more contagious and 'more deadly.'

We are faced with a new situation,' he said. 'We are involved in a race. Propagation of a new variant that was identified by our British neighbours' must be dealt with.'

Current efforts to limit the virus 'were too limited at a time when the epidemic is accelerating'. The spread of the variant meant 'we risk losing control'

"Thanks to the vaccine, the way out of the crisis is emerging,' Macron announced that the vaccine drive would be open to all those over 60 from April 16 and those over 50 from May 15.

Other Gleanings:

The president said non-essential shops would remain shut, along with businesses such as cafes, bars, and restaurants. The French finance ministry said the new lockdown would see 150,000 businesses close nationwide,

Under the restrictions, people are allowed to go outside for leisure, but only within a 6 miles radius from their homes - and without gathering.

[wolfgal]

hey guys

please go back to my previous posts and note that i am not making accusations of price-gouging or manipulation. for me, blaming and scapegoating are not the case here either. when i evoke social responsibility, it is because it may very well apply... hey guys, i'm a very, very laid-back, easy-going person but am beginning to wonder why a simple question seems to ruffle your feathers so.


last try (i promise):

look at how this virus is mutating and becoming disastrously mean in places like Brazil.

imagine that, somewhere, in some hot spot that currently has little access to vaccinations (or anywhere really(, a new "pandemic inside a pandemic" spreads like wildfire and is more deadly than ever. it could happen this year, next year, the year after...

imagine that it all happens too fast, too fast for big Pharma to fix? how bad could things get?

can we do anything to prevent this?

to prevent this type of scenario, doesn't it seem that the best we could do now is to vaccinate everyone everywhere (create enough herd immunity) as quickly as possible?

(now the part that ruffles feathers)

at any time along this potential path, can we expect big pharma to release their rights to intellectual property so that more vaccinations can be produced and distributed more rapidly so that poorer countries (and places that have potential for a serious hot-spot-virus-mutation event) can effectively vaccinate their people?

...and stomp out the above risk?

in the meantime, the benefits are clear: this kind of action would facilitate the repair of economies across the globe and those livelihoods that are quickly turning into desperation, stiff and hopelessness (think mass migration). there are good reasons to do all we can to end the losses and the collateral damage... as well as a killer variant of the virus.

[Montanan]

The cost of the vaccines is relatively modest for developed countries, it is the underdeveloped countries that will need significant financial assistance in procuring vaccines and distribution resources. Bill and Melinda Gates & Warren Buffet via their Foundation are paying for a huge number of Covid vaccines to be used in low and medium developed countries via GAVI and COVAX. Many developed countries are also contributing to GAVI and COVAX.

Production is pretty much maxed out within the pharma sector, there simply is not enough capacity to subcontract out the billions of doses that need to be produced in one year or two years. This is a capacity issue which will not be resolved by IP waivers or licenses.

It is more important that the highest quality of vaccines be produced. Production of comparatively poor efficacy vaccines is a social injustice, if such production capacities could be shifted to produce the higher efficacy vaccines. That is easy to say, but given that there are very different technologies and ingredients it is unlikely that all of the vaccine production can be rapidly deployed to the higher efficacy versions.

But it does appear that boosters and additional vaccines to cover new variants will become the norm. I see that Pfizer is investing $475 million to expand its production capacity. The governments should aid the pharmaceutical firms to expand and moth ball production capacities which could be rapidly activated to provide production for the next pandemic, but the hardest part is the need to keep a full staff of highly qualified and experienced personnel on a needed but placed on hold basis for years on end.

I recall at the biotechnology company that I worked at for seven years that we realized that the most important asset we had walked out to go home wearing sneakers each evening. That company of 220 employees was purchased for $2.5 billion in cash during the late 1980's and had but one product that it was marketing after 15 years of development efforts. The fact is that the majority of pharmaceutical scientists will have worked their entire career and will not have a single therapeutic that has been approved and successfully marketed. That lack of success track record is why I decided to leave the biotechnology sector, even though the company was successful in aiding the development of 4 vaccines which became to be produced and marketed under license by the biotechnology company.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Production is pretty much maxed out within the pharma sector, there simply is not enough capacity to subcontract out the billions of doses that need to be produced in one year or two years. This is a capacity issue which will not be resolved by IP waivers or licenses.

Why Not? Surely allowing developing nations to produce their own vaccinations would add a vast amount of capacity - Teach a man to fish as they say. This is though not a short term fix as there would also obviously need to be some form of technology transfer as well, but if this is a humanitarian issue, it should not be a problem?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by wolfgal

hey guys

please go back to my previous posts and note that i am not making accusations of price-gouging or manipulation. for me, blaming and scapegoating are not the case here either. when i evoke social responsibility, it is because it may very well apply... hey guys, i'm a very, very laid-back, easy-going person but am beginning to wonder why a simple question seems to ruffle your feathers so.

last try (i promise):

look at how this virus is mutating and becoming disastrously mean in places like Brazil.

imagine that, somewhere, in some hot spot that currently has little access to vaccinations (or anywhere really(, a new "pandemic inside a pandemic" spreads like wildfire and is more deadly than ever. it could happen this year, next year, the year after...

imagine that it all happens too fast, too fast for big Pharma to fix? how bad could things get?

can we do anything to prevent this?

to prevent this type of scenario, doesn't it seem that the best we could do now is to vaccinate everyone everywhere (create enough herd immunity) as quickly as possible?

(now the part that ruffles feathers)

at any time along this potential path, can we expect big pharma to release their rights to intellectual property so that more vaccinations can be produced and distributed more rapidly so that poorer countries (and places that have potential for a serious hot-spot-virus-mutation event) can effectively vaccinate their people?

...and stomp out the above risk?

in the meantime, the benefits are clear: this kind of action would facilitate the repair of economies across the globe and those livelihoods that are quickly turning into desperation, stiff and hopelessness (think mass migration). there are good reasons to do all we can to end the losses and the collateral damage... as well as a killer variant of the virus.

Certainly everyone agrees, I'm sure, that it's in everyone's interest to vaccinate the whole world as fast as possible.

However, I don't think IP rights stand in the way of that at all. For several reasons:

1. The existence and integrity of IP rights, on the basis of which investment is made into the sector, developing the manufacturing capacity and the technology which is what is saving the world right now, is crucially important. If we nationalize or confiscate those rights now, then this will stop investment into the sector in the future and we won't be ready for the next pandemic.

2. The main obstacle to vaccinating poor countries is not the availability of doses, but capacity of distribution and logistics. Did you read what was written in that article I linked to previously, which stated that even India, which is the world leader in the manufacture of vaccines, can't distribute vaccines to more than 22% of its population per annum? It's going to be even much worse in Africa and parts of South America and SE Asia.

3. Are you aware of any cases where manfufacturing capacity is not being used because a pharma company refuses to license its IP? I'm not aware of a single case. Astra Zeneca has provided not only IP but extensive know-how and support to the Serum Institute of India (a private, family-owned company and the largest manufacturer of vaccines in the world) and to a South Korean company.




Manufacturing these vaccines is not like cooking potato soup in your kitchen -- all you need is the recipe and anyone can do it. It's a very high tech and complex process. Only 1% of all the vaccines used in Africa are produced on the continent -- see: https://www.devex.com/news/broad-man...ll-order-99454. You cannot create a vaccine manufacturing facility from zero in less than a bunch of years, and there are only two companies in all of sub-Saharan Africa which can manufacture even low tech vaccines. BioVac in South Africa will manufacture the American ImmunityBio vaccine, in whatever modest quantities it can, with IP, know-how, and support from the U.S. company -- IP is not slowing anything down there. See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-south-africa. The only other African company which is capable of manufacturing vaccines is in Senegal, and has no capacity.

The highly effective Sputnik V vaccine is being manufactured under license in Brazil, India, China, and South Korea, and production will soon start in Italy.

I see no signs that vaccine production is being slowed down because of IP rights. On the contrary, it looks like all possible manufacturing capacity is being used to the fullest, and that there is a great deal of cooperation going on -- the system seems to be working well. It is staggering, in fact, to note the volume of production -- 9.5 billion doses of covid vaccines will be produced by the end of this year, which is double worldwide annual production of all vaccines of all types prior to the pandemic. See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc...h=54079b81462b. We should not tinker with the system that produces this phenomenal performance, and IP is at the heart of it.

Nor is cost an obstacle to vaccinating the world -- funding in the tens of billions of dollars -- enough to buy vaccines for the entire world -- is already being provided by wealthy countries, and anyway because of the extraordinary high volumes being produced (which allows development costs to be amortized over huge numbers of doses), the cost of the vaccine itself is trivial even for poor countries. I see no sign of price gouging or market manipulation by the pharma companies.

IP is just not the issue or problem here. The real problem is local distribution and logistics, something every country needs to work out itself, with as much help from wealthy countries as we can provide.

And why are you freaked out over the variants? All viruses mutate, and as a rule they become less harmful over time as viruses become endemic. The existing vaccines are effective (more or less) against all of the extant mutations, and booster shots to deal with any weird mutation can be developed in a couple of months. "What if it happens too fast for big pharma to fix" -- well, who else is going to fix it? And if all worldwide manufacturing capacity is already fully engaged in producing vaccines, how are you going to speed anything up?

We're going to break the back of this thing.It's going to be basically over by the end of summer in developed countries, and it will take a bit longer in developing countries, but this pandemic WILL end! Steady on!

[UFO]

Looks like mask do work after all, just not in the right way. Cheap Crap made in China is the problem here.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ares-1.5966387

[GordMay]

“People gave up on flu pandemic measures a century ago when they tired of them – and paid a price” ~ by J. Alex Navarro, PhD
“... A century later, and a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, it is understandable that people now are all too eager to return to their old lives. The end of this pandemic inevitably will come, as it has with every previous one humankind has experienced.
If we have anything to learn from the history of the 1918 influenza pandemic, as well as our experience thus far with COVID-19, however, it is that a premature return to pre-pandemic life risks more cases and more deaths ...”
Much more ➥ https://theconversation.com/people-g...a-price-156551

In his research as a historian of medicine, J. Alex Navarro, PhD, has seen, again and again, the many ways our current pandemic has mirrored the one, experienced by our forebears a century ago.
See ➥ https://scholar.google.com/citations...J&hl=en&oi=sra

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UFO

Why Not? Surely allowing developing nations to produce their own vaccinations would add a vast amount of capacity - Teach a man to fish as they say. This is though not a short term fix as there would also obviously need to be some form of technology transfer as well, but if this is a humanitarian issue, it should not be a problem?

Sure, but how long do you think it takes to build from scratch a company capable of producing high tech vaccines? In a country without a pharmceutical sector? Without the scientists and engineers and managers? 10 years? 20?


And suppose a poor country decides to spend what few billions it has to build up such a company, what does that company do during the 99 years between this pandemic and the next one and how wise an investment will that look like when the pandemic is over?



There are no easy answers here.



I guess that some developing countries might do well to build up their pharma sectors. The business plan would be roughly -- become self sufficient in many pharmaceuticals, and exploit cost structure advantages (if any) to compete in export markets.



It is hard as hell to compete with the Indian pharma sector, which supplies 50% of the world's vaccines and most of the world's supply of generic drugs.


There are two major issues with developing this kind of capital- and technology-intensive industry in developing countries:


1. High cost of capital, high interest rates. Inherent disadvantage, and a very large one. Sovereign gilt-edge bonds of Senegal yield 6.25%; Ghana's yield 10.25%; Argentina's yields 45% (!!). That's the cost of capital in those countries in their own currencies. The cost of the financing for the plant and equipment will normally dwarf any cost saving on labor or land, making high tech businesses like pharma uncompetitive in developign countries.



2. Shortage of human capital. You need highly qualified engineers, managers, biotech scientists, to run such a company. There is a worldwide shortage of these; brilliant Senegalese biotech students are not likely to stay in Senegal when they can make big bucks in Germany.


To say "this is easier said than done" -- i.e., "teach them to fish" -- is an understatement.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

To say "this is easier said than done" -- i.e., "teach them to fish" -- is an understatement.

yadi,yadi, ya. if all industrial jobs were exported to china and accounting to india, in short time, cant be that difficult to teach making vaccine. If india has so strong vaccine manufacturing with less than ideal hygienic conditions, and large number of diseases harrasing their people, so they do not have many elders, anyone can do it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

yadi,yadi, ya. if all industrial jobs were exported to china and accounting to india, in short time, cant be that difficult to teach making vaccine. If india has so strong vaccine manufacturing with less than ideal hygienic conditions, and large number of diseases harrasing their people, so they do not have many elders, anyone can do it.

Sure. No doubt anyone can do it, given enough money and time. All you have to do is:

1. Train and hire a generation of biotech scientists, engineers, and managers.
2. Design the plant and processes.
3. Develop and/or acquire the know-how and IP
4. Raise the capital to finance all of it
5. Build it, buy and set up all the equipment, staff it.
6. Develop your supply chains.
7. Develop your distribution chains.
8. Start it up and work out the bugs.

10 - 15 years ought to do it IF you have plenty of capital available and unlimited political will (however note that poor countries are generally those places where there is not capital available).

It only took India about 50 years to become a major center of pharma manufacturing.

It only took China about 30 years to become a major center of manufacturing.

Building vaccine manufacturing capacity from scratch is NOT one of the things we can do to fight this particular pandemic, and all the more not in third world countries. The time frames are a complete mismatch. Might it be worthwhile for the NEXT pandemic? Perhaps.

This is an opinion shared by none other than the head of the Developing Countries Vaccine Manufacturers Network:

“Maybe we should think about building it [COVID-19 vaccine production capacity] in the years to come. But you know, during 2021 and maybe early 2022, we need to go to where the existing capacities are, existing expertise is, existing human resources are.” https://www.devex.com/news/broad-man...ll-order-99454 Because it's really quite, well, obvious.

And in any case, as I said in the previous post, it's not manufacturing, but rather distribution, which will slow down vaccination of poorer countries. We are already making more vaccines than the world can possibly distribute, producing covid vaccines at around double the pace of manufacturing of ALL vaccines COMBINED WORLDWIDE prior to the pandemic.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc...h=54079b81462b

By a year from now, we will have manufactured enough vaccine to vaccinate the entire world. But it will take years to distribute and administer the vaccine throughout the developing world.

Even in India, which has the largest vaccine manufacturing capacity in the world, they can only vaccinate 22% of the population per annum. Manufacturing is NOT the problem!

[Sos]

This vaccine manufacturing plant is due to come online soon in the UK. This should give you an idea of what is involved and this was planned a few years ago.

[darylat8750]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

This is part of the data I was looking for:

“... For 6% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate.”

That is extremely low, but the burning question is what is the percentage for those under 40? I would guess if you are young and healthy with no co-morbidities, your risk of dying would be far less than if you were elderly (or even in your 60’s) with no co-morbidities.

This information should be widely published, as it is important data.

If, for example, only 1% of those dying from COVID-19 under 40 had no co-morbidities, then in England it means the chance of dying if you are 20-29 with no co-morbidities and have a confirmed case of COVID-19 is not around 1 in 10,000, but around 1 in a million. For those aged 5-14 in the same position, it is not 1 in 100,000, but 1 in 10 million. (Contrast this to an overall risk of around 1 in 10 if over 80).

For those people at high risk, I think the vaccine is a godsend, but I think it is wrong to be coercing those whose risk of dying from COVID-19 is next to non existent, to be injected with vaccines that have zero long term data and whose mode of action (genetically instructing our cells to produce a virus spike protein) has never been approved for human use prior to this pandemic.

As for contemplating including children in this program once initial trials are completed and emergency/provisional/conditional approval is gained, if their risk of dying from COVID-19 if they have a confirmed case with no co-morbidities is close to 1 in 10 million in the midst of a pandemic (and remember that it is estimated that 80% of children are totally asymptomatic so they are not included in this data), what are we thinking!!!!

I probably sound like a broken record repeating this point , but I think it is a critical one.

My feelings exactly. I am old but have a good immune system and no other high risk factors. I haven't gotten the flu in more than 20 years. I did get a flu vaccine about 15 years ago and got sicker than I have ever gotten from the flu.
So my only reason to get vaccinated would be to help break the pandemic. But I'm told that I could still be a carrier even if vaccinated and would still be expected to wear a mask. So I have a hard time adding the risk of getting vaccinated to my life.

On another front. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a "vaccinated passport". It just seems like adding control and profits to the "vaccinators".

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by darylat8750

. . . So my only reason to get vaccinated would be to help break the pandemic. . .

Enlightened point of view

Originally Posted by darylat8750

. . .But I'm told that I could still be a carrier even if vaccinated and would still be expected to wear a mask. So I have a hard time adding the risk of getting vaccinated to my life.

If it helps -- the science is increasingly clear that being vaccinated dramatically reduces the risk of transmitting the virus.



I would wear a mask anyway just to make other people feel comfortable -- vaccination doesn't influence this.


Risks from the vaccine seem vanishingly small, even the Astra Zeneca. Even if you're in good health you have risks from the disease, which for anyone over 50 must be orders of magnitude greater than from the vaccine. I am in excellent health with NO co-morbidities but was sick as a dog with COVID -- I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy -- and vaccination will prevent that.



Therefore -- I encourage you to get vaccinated. I just did. Zero side effects (in my case) aside from a slightly sore arm.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by UFO

Why Not? Surely allowing developing nations to produce their own vaccinations would add a vast amount of capacity - Teach a man to fish as they say. This is though not a short term fix as there would also obviously need to be some form of technology transfer as well, but if this is a humanitarian issue, it should not be a problem?

Because the countries have zero facilities or personnel capable of such manufacturing. Heck, even Canada and many other developed countries have to import their vaccines, or at a minimum specific ingredients and supplies.

The scope of requirements to produce pharmaceuticals goes far beyond the requirements of fishing.

[darylat8750]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Enlightened point of view






If it helps -- the science is increasingly clear that being vaccinated dramatically reduces the risk of transmitting the virus.



I would wear a mask anyway just to make other people feel comfortable -- vaccination doesn't influence this.




Risks from the vaccine seem vanishingly small, even the Astra Zeneca. Even if you're in good health you have risks from the disease, which for anyone over 50 must be orders of magnitude greater than from the vaccine. I am in excellent health with NO co-morbidities but was sick as a dog with COVID -- I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy -- and vaccination will prevent that.





Therefore -- I encourage you to get vaccinated. I just did. Zero side effects (in my case) aside from a slightly sore arm.

Not a large sample but my Doctor and Nurse neighbors (he works in a hospital and she in a long term care facility ) both got the Moderno vaccine. She had very mild side effects. He had mild side effects after the first dose. After the second dose he was sicker than he has ever been from any virus for 4 days. Seriously "I feel like I'm going to die" sick. Needless to say he is not a big fan....

I feel (ya, I know "feel" is not scientific ) that it is awfully soon to have solid information on long term effects. My understanding is that the only good data that they have for this type of medication is from it's use on cancer patients. I may be wrong about that technology.