Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Magilla 510]

7 hours ago, West 77 said:

It's good to see that Ireland are going to benefit from the successful  UK vaccine program by an offer of 3.7 million spare UK doses.

Britain does not yet have a surplus of vaccine to give to Ireland, and the Irish government doesn't appear to have had wind of any offer.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/prospect-of-uk-sharing-vaccines-with-state-many-many-weeks-away-says-coveney-1.4522144

"An Irish Government source said there had been no outreach to Dublin ahead of the newspaper report, and questioned its timing as it came as Britain faced a supply shortage while deliveries to the Republic are about to ramp up.”

[Magilla 510]

4 minutes ago, West 77 said:

It was first reported in the Sunday Times today that the UK Government were offering the 3.7 million doses.   The situation will become clearer over the next few days.  

The UK government hasn't made any such offer.

 

It's a currently just a proposal put forward by Arlene Foster.

[apelike 10]

4 hours ago, Delbow said:

Of course you got yours from the NHS, everyone has. That's my point - I was struggling to think of anything more social democratic than a publicly funded health service free at the point of use, which I think was Staunton's point.

That was just one point that I can agree with. The other main point about the actual vaccine project being a Socially Democratic construct does not hold though as the link I provided in post#4631 shows.

Edited March 28, 2021 by apelike

[Longcol 601]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

That was just one point that I can agree with. The other main point about the actual vaccine project being a Socially Democratic construct does not hold though as the link I provided in post#4631 shows.

You mean the link that shows that  large amounts of start up costs (£65.5 million) come from the public purse?

 

Not to mention the the £336 million down payment from the EU.

 

https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/az-nets-396m-downpayment-for-300m-plus-eu-vaccine-doses

 

 

[apelike 10]

25 minutes ago, Longcol said:

You mean the link that shows that  large amounts of start up costs (£65.5 million) come from the public purse?

Yep and that money is also helping a private company in the end to bolster its own profits.

 

Quote:

 

"Oxford University has received £65.5m of funding from the Vaccines Taskforce, leaving it open to criticism that public funds are boosting private profits."

 

25 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Not to mention the the £336 million down payment from the EU.

 

https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/az-nets-396m-downpayment-for-300m-plus-eu-vaccine-doses

A different matter entirely.

[Delbow 699]

8 hours ago, apelike said:

That was just one point that I can agree with. The other main point about the actual vaccine project being a Socially Democratic construct does not hold though as the link I provided in post#4631 shows.

I think the knowledge that governments across the world were ready to use tax dollars to buy huge amounts of it (including the USA who have essentially set up a temporary national health service) was a big motivator for the drug companies to get a vaccine out as quickly as they did. Imagine if it had been down to individuals to buy their own doses.

[apelike 10]

5 hours ago, Delbow said:

I think the knowledge that governments across the world were ready to use tax dollars to buy huge amounts of it (including the USA who have essentially set up a temporary national health service) was a big motivator for the drug companies to get a vaccine out as quickly as they did. Imagine if it had been down to individuals to buy their own doses.

You are probably right but thats how healthcare works when it comes to purchasing and distribution especially in the UK with its NHS. 

 

What I dispute though is the idea that with the AstraZeneca one it was a social democratic construct that enabled development to happen. £100's of millions have been given by governments, the EU, a number of charities, private organisations and private people to a private company and it's associates to help develop a vaccine. There is no transparency or accountability from that company as to how much of that money was actually spent on development though. It may be a noble gesture to suspend its profits for a while and just charge the cost price but that's about it.

[Delbow 699]

8 minutes ago, apelike said:

You are probably right but thats how healthcare works when it comes to purchasing and distribution especially in the UK with its NHS. 

 

What I dispute though is the idea that with the AstraZeneca one it was a social democratic construct that enabled development to happen. £100's of millions have been given by governments, the EU, a number of charities, private organisations and private people to a private company and it's associates to help develop a vaccine. There is no transparency or accountability from that company as to how much of that money was actually spent on development though. It may be a noble gesture to suspend its profits for a while and just charge the cost price but that's about it.

Yes, and I doubt there is a big pharmaceutical company out there that hasn't had substantial financial help from government in one form or another, whether it's tax breaks on R&D, grant funding, or providing a steady flow of state educated graduates. It's interesting how people see a lot of private firms as standalone when they've benefited hugely from government programmes. Space X for example - on the face of it they are just a private company, but the technology they are using has been developed by NASA, using a staggering amount of public money. To develop the Apollo programme, the US government was allocating 10% of GDP for several years - that's huge! Back to vaccines, you would hope it isn't a case of "take public R&D money and then just max the profits", but it probably is, isn't it.

[enntee 10]

What we have really done is paid up front for advance purchases of vaccines.

Those advance payments have enabled swifter development and increases of production capacity that have got us to where we are today.

UK have paid a rough average of £10 per vaccination for 300 million doses spread over several companies.

Prices have varied between companies.

A rough comparison is that we pay around £6 or £7 for flu vaccinations.

 

The US are paying more on average but seem to pay roughly the same as they pay for flu.

[El Cid 219]

On 29/03/2021 at 15:21, enntee said:

What we have really done is paid up front for advance purchases of vaccines.

Those advance payments have enabled swifter development and increases of production capacity that have got us to where we are today.

UK have paid a rough average of £10 per vaccination for 300 million doses spread over several companies.

Prices have varied between companies.

A rough comparison is that we pay around £6 or £7 for flu vaccinations.

 

The US are paying more on average but seem to pay roughly the same as they pay for flu.

We have paid for a few different vaccines, that we may not use. Its been stated that some vaccines should be given to poor countries, but with new varriants coming, those vaccines may be worthless.

[enntee 10]

51 minutes ago, El Cid said:

We have paid for a few different vaccines, that we may not use. Its been stated that some vaccines should be given to poor countries, but with new varriants coming, those vaccines may be worthless.

"may" or may not.
We have a very successful vaccination programme.

On of the reasons that we do, is because of the entrepreneurial approach as mentioned.

What's your point?

[apelike 10]

2 hours ago, enntee said:

"may" or may not.
We have a very successful vaccination programme.

On of the reasons that we do, is because of the entrepreneurial approach as mentioned.

Not sure it was an entrepreneurial approach. Most of the pharma companies and especially Astrazeneca were in the main paid to try and develop a successful vaccine and also paid in advance to deliver it. Successful yes but it was not very entrepreneurial as they didn't take much risk when it came to financing development and rollout. As stated already, £100's of millions were given to them so it hugely mitigated any risk.