[ad_1]
We hope that the noble intentions of the public and private parties who signed an agreement on Friday to purchase 2.6 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine will carry the nation through its perilous journey in uncharted seas hit by a devastating pandemic.
The firm is a good example of how the public and private sectors can come together to advance valuable government programs. Participating individuals and companies are mentioned in news reports.
When reading the statements of the signatories and participants, we observe that they covered most of the key aspects of the mass vaccination plan. Some of us who watch from the shore will try to help refine it by playing a supervisory role.
We now begin by asking questions that have remained pending. We do so in the spirit of promoting transparency in an effort that affects us all. Here it goes:
* Are we buying vaccines only from AstraZeneca? If so, why? If not, what are the other possible sources and at what prices and terms are we willing to buy? Does the government have funds for the purchase and for the logistics chain that follows?
* Is the AstraZeneca price ex-factory? Who gets the commission, referral fee, handling fee, or whatever it’s called?
* When was the AstraZeneca vaccine tested and approved by the Food and Drug Administration for safety and efficacy? What are your approved qualifications? Are there pending requests for vaccine approval from other providers? What about applications for emergency use?
* Will FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines be commercially available to those who can afford but are not on the government’s vaccination priority list? Are the prices of vaccines regulated or controlled?
* What is the status of the offers made for the supply / use of vaccines from China and Russia? Are you interested in involving Filipinos in phase 3 trials or mass vaccination? What are the terms? Could we also buy FDA approved vaccines from China and Russia?
* When will the government list the designated recipients of the free vaccination in clear top-down priority using their share of the AstraZeneca stock? For inoculation, will recipients line up at the vaccination centers or will vaccinators go to them?
* In the case of soldiers and policemen, will the recipients include everyone on the AFP and PNP lists or only those who have daily contact with patients and suspected carriers of the virus? Who in your family members qualifies for the free vaccination ordered by the president?
* Are people to be vaccinated required first to have swab tests to check for the virus even if they do not show symptoms? If not, why not? If so, how long after sampling or results are known should the vaccine be administered?
* Can one get infected between the time the sample is taken and the time the results are known? What should be done during the interval to avoid infection? What happens if you get vaccinated when you are already infected?
* Has AstraZeneca responded satisfactorily to peer questions about its vaccine trial data and discrepancies in its presumed efficacy based on two regimens using different injected doses in different age-graded recipients?
* How soon can the government publish the calendar or schedule of the arrival of the AstraZeneca stock in the country and its distribution throughout the archipelago?
* If the goal is ultimately to vaccinate 60 percent of the population to achieve herd immunity, what is the timetable? Can this be done within Duterte’s term ending in 2022?
* During the three to five year inoculation period mentioned by vaccine czar Carlito Gálvez Jr., what will the rest of the population of more than 100 million that is not on the priority list do to protect themselves from COVID-19 ?
There are other issues that need at least clarification. We will ask them later.
• AstraZeneca’s ‘success’ generates hope, eyebrow
When the world, reeling from the COVID-19 pandemic, first heard reports Monday that AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine was an average 70 percent effective, the news generated not only hope but also amazement. , according to CNN.
AstraZeneca said study participants in the UK had received two different courses. In one group, 2,741 participants received a half dose of the vaccine and then a full dose at least a month later. This group got 90 percent protection against COVID-19.
But another group of 8,895 received a full dose followed by another full dose at least a month later. The second group got only 62 percent protection. By averaging the findings, AZ said its vaccine was 70 percent effective.
Speaking to the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of AstraZeneca, said: “The error is really irrelevant.”
“Regardless of how you slice the data, even if you just believe the full dose, full dose data … We still have efficacy that meets approval thresholds with a vaccine that is more than 60 percent effective. “, said.
The US Food and Drug Administration requires a threshold of at least 50 percent effectiveness. However, it is not clear whether the FDA will authorize emergency use. AstraZeneca has yet to test its medium dose in the US.
When other major drug manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, published their efficacy results earlier this month, they included the data underlying their results.
AstraZeneca said 131 participants developed the database for their efficacy rating, but did not say how many of them had received the vaccine or placebo. What is also unclear is why the two-dose regimens produced different efficacy results.
On Wednesday, US vaccine czar Moncef Slaoui said they were reviewing the AstraZeneca data. He said the group that got the wrongly lowest dose that produced 90 percent efficacy had been a younger group, with no one older than 55. He noted that young people often produce stronger immune responses to vaccines.
* * *
Nota Bene: All postscripts are also archived at manilamail.com. The author is on Twitter as @FDPascual. Email: [email protected]
[ad_2]
