# No Vaccine for you!



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

Canada will get COVID-19 vaccines after other countries due to lack of manufacturing capacity, Trudeau says


Canada is at a ‘disadvantage’ because unlike countries such as Germany, Britain and the United States, Canada can’t manufacture vaccines at home, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said




www.theglobeandmail.com





"Canada is at a “disadvantage” because unlike countries such as Germany, Britain and the United States, Canada can’t manufacture vaccines at home, Mr. Trudeau said at a news conference in Ottawa. His concession comes as pressure on the federal government mounts to explain when and how Canada will be able to roll out vaccines for Canadians and after the federal government in August said Canada would be able to make 250,000 doses of vaccines by November." 

"That's rubbish...that's not true" says @profamirattaran of the government's remarks that Canada's production facilities don't have the capacity to mass produce vaccines even if we had the licensing agreements to do so.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331732940825440259
Here again Trudeau is caught trying to mislead the country. NRC in Montreal is capable of making 60M doses a year. All that needed to happen is the Trudeau negotiating team needed obtain the rights to make the doses in country just like most other countries did. Why do we put up with such incompetence?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Canada is actually taking some heat on the world stage because we aggressively bought up so many doses. We are one of very few countries which has bought so many doses... some would say, more than our "fair share". Our government has been working hard to ensure vaccines for us, and taking drugs out of the world's supply.









Coronavirus vaccines: Will any countries get left out?


Experts say the pandemic needs a global solution, but there are concerns over access to vaccines.



www.bbc.com













Rich countries grab half of projected covid-19 vaccine supply


Less-well-off countries may have to wait years to inoculate their people




www.economist.com





Yes we may be at a disadvantage vs US and Germany (two very unique countries) -- true -- but in the big picture, on the world stage, we are *not* at a disadvantage.

See the Economist article. Other, poorer countries may have to wait years to vaccinate their people because Canada has placed orders for an obscene amount of vaccine doses. We've reserved the highest of any country.



> America alone is responsible for nearly one-sixth of these AMCs, having pre-ordered more than 1bn doses from half a dozen drugmakers. This amounts to three jabs per person. *Canada has purchased ten doses for each of its citizens, the most for any country or alliance on a per person basis (see chart)*


And you're complaining that Canada is disadvantaged?? We're already hoarding / pre-reserving supplies by throwing our wealth around, and you're complaining that we're disadvantaged?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Trudeau was busy buying defective masks from China while the USA was financially encouraging and pinning down vaccine contracts...another fail.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> Trudeau was busy buying defective masks from China while the USA was financially encouraging and pinning down vaccine contracts...another fail.


Actually Eder, he was busy buying vaccine doses and hedging bets (during uncertainty) by buying a huge range of doses, from multiple makers.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Actually Eder, he was busy buying vaccine doses and hedging bets (during uncertainty) by buying a huge range of doses, from multiple makers.


He may have been busy buying doses, but you have to get them to make a difference.

The link below is the pdf from AstraZeneca that shows their roll-out order for who gets the vaccine and in what order.

Of course UK and USA get it first, but in third I see Africa and India next June, and then in last place is Canada in November 2021. The entire rest of the world is ahead of us. Good job Canada.



https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/dam/az/covid-19/media/56498_AZ_Map_Update_SS_Media.pdf



ltr


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

All this posturing and finger pointing over vaccines that may never even make it to production?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

afulldeck said:


> NRC in Montreal is capable of making 60M doses a year. All that needed to happen is the Trudeau negotiating team needed obtain the rights to make the doses in country just like most other countries did. Why do we put up with such incompetence?


You have a link to back that statement up other than that professor, because there's some context missing to his claim. Because what I found was an announcement in September that the federal government would invest $126M to expand that facility to produce 2M doses/month by next year. 
Just so that you can see a difference in opinions, the argument is that there is some capacity, but, it's privately owned, and already committed to manufacturing other vaccines

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331763091529412613
One that's mentioned is GSK in Toronto. That's not one of the pharmaceuticals that have made a vaccine yet, I doubt that either company involved would allow GSK facilities to produce a competitor's product.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau can't interfere in any of the deals for vaccines.........SNC and all that.


----------



## diharv (Apr 19, 2011)

Just wait. Come next June, we'll still be twiddling our thumbs awaiting the first dose to arrive in Canada.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I think I will not rush to judgement until we get real data and an clear understanding of the rollout and the rollout schedule. It is pointless to box at shadows at this point in time IMHO.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

You misspelled "First World Grabs Half of Vaccine Supply"

You meant "First World Pre-Pays to Fund Development and Production of Vaccines that will bring the world out of the pandemic in record breaking time saving millions of lives".


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

At least when we do start getting the vaccines we will have a good idea if they work and any side effects they may have.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Trudeau can't interfere in any of the deals for vaccines.........SNC and all that.


Actually he likely could.
There is little (except common sense) stopping him from forcing Canadian suppliers to stop their current vaccine production and work on COVID19.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

bgc_fan said:


> You have a link to back that statement up other than that professor, because there's some context missing to his claim. Because what I found was an announcement in September that the federal government would invest $126M to expand that facility to produce 2M doses/month by next year.
> Just so that you can see a difference in opinions, the argument is that there is some capacity, but, it's privately owned, and already committed to manufacturing other vaccines
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331763091529412613
> One that's mentioned is GSK in Toronto. That's not one of the pharmaceuticals that have made a vaccine yet, I doubt that either company involved would allow GSK facilities to produce a competitor's product.


Yes, he provides more context here:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331316605163245569
Further, do not think that @ProfAmirAttaran is a conservative partisan----he is a ferocious critic.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

ian said:


> I think I will not rush to judgement until we get real data and an clear understanding of the rollout and the rollout schedule. It is pointless to box at shadows at this point in time IMHO.


It's not a rush to judgement, it's a realization that the liberal team is strategically and management challenged, no that is wrong, they are *incompetent*. Their incessant need to virtual signal continues to put Canadians at risk in so many domains. The party appears to be the definition of what not to do. First it was ethics, then it's financial and now it's health. How many examples do we as a population need to endure?

Why would any government forgo the opportunity to produce a vaccine in their own country in any contract? It is doubtful that adding in such a stipulation that it would result in any material change. Even if you do not have the capabilities in the moment, as the leading party, you should be strategically thinking about the future capabilities. Complete lack of foresight or vision.

Yes let's virtual signal, order twice the number of doses and get to the back of the line.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Just so that you can see a difference in opinions, the argument is that there is some capacity, but, it's privately owned, and already committed to manufacturing other vaccines
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331763091529412613


Almost all the vaccine capacity worldwide is privately owned.
Yes it's making other vaccines, but that isn't what Trudeau said.

He said we can't make vaccines in Canada. We can, and we're making vaccines today.
Trudeau is a liar. 

That's why there are so many critics.
He has been found to be unethical, and honestly seems unable to comprehend why that's a problem.

He continuously lies about what is going on, even simple easily verifiable facts, he choses to lie.

That's what I find most distasteful about him.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

afulldeck said:


> Further, do not think that @ProfAmirAttaran is a conservative partisan----he is a ferocious critic.


Doesn't matter if someone is partisan, their arguments can stand irrespective of their political opinion.
Trudeau is an unethical liar, and if it were not for his extraordinary political skills I'd say he's wholey unsuited for the position of PM.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

afulldeck said:


> Yes, he provides more context here:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331316605163245569
> Further, do not think that @ProfAmirAttaran is a conservative partisan----he is a ferocious critic.


So, he is providing misleading information. Namely, the NRC lab is concentrated on animal vaccines. From the National Post article (you know that really Liberal-slanted newspaper) that he links there are these quotes that don't support him:

_Andrew Casey, president and CEO of Biotech Canada an industry association, said the prime minister is partially right, especially with the leading candidates.
“For two of the three vaccines that we now know about, the Pfizer and the Moderna vaccines, those are mRNA vaccines, which there is no manufacturing for that in Canada,” he said. “In fact, it’s very limited around the world because it’s such a novel vaccine.”
Casey said there is plenty of manufacturing capacity in Canada for making vaccines, but it uses different types of technology and can’t be easily switched to something different.

He said the manufacturers in Canada also have other orders they are processing for the flu and for childhood vaccinations and couldn’t just scrap that production for COVID even if the technology was interchangeable. Given Canada’s limitations, Casey said, buying access to as many doses as possible from other countries was a good move.

The Montreal facility received $44 million for upgrades and then another $126 million in August to build a manufacturing facility that will ultimately be able to produce millions of doses a month. The Saskatchewan facility received $12 million for its manufacturing capacity.
Dr. Paul Hodgson, associate director of the Saskatchewan facility, said they hope to have their manufacturing capacity ready late in 2021, but it is a complex process and bringing the equipment online takes time even once construction is complete.
“It’s not a situation right now where we can take technologies that other people have and use them and it’s unfortunate,” he said.
He said in hindsight it would have been ideal to get funding years ago, but that is not the situation the country is in. He said the Canada should definitely learn from this situation and be prepared for the next potential virus._

Long story short, the only viable candidate would be AstraZeneca; however, that does require some work to be done because you can't simply take a new vaccine "recipe" and run with that in a facility that wasn't designed (either standards or equipment).


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

bgc_fan said:


> So, he is providing misleading information. Namely, the NRC lab is concentrated on animal vaccines.


Did I miss the memo? Are human's now rocks?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

afulldeck said:


> Did I miss the memo? Are human's now rocks?


I didn't realize you go to a veterinarian for medical care. My mistake.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

bgc_fan said:


> I didn't realize you go to a veterinarian for medical care. My mistake.


It's about the technology and the process of creating the vaccine that is important in vaccine development, not who or want its administered too.....


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

AstraZeneca has problems of their own. Their clinical trials administered wrong doses and their findings are questionable.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/astrazeneca-oxford-vaccine-error-trial-results-1.5816852


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

afulldeck said:


> It's about the technology and the process of creating the vaccine that is important in vaccine development, not who or want its administered too.....


The technology and process can be quite different depending on the vaccine. People who don't know better think, "Oh they produce vaccines, they should be able to produce other vaccines". I already provided quotes from the source that YOU referenced that stated that isn't the case. And for the proof of NRC capability, he links to the manufacturing of a vaccine in tablet form. I'm going to bet that manufacturing vaccines for tablet forms is a lot more different than an injectable solution. 
Again, have to point out the fact that the government was investing money into the facility to increase vaccine capability to 250k does/month (supposed to be by this month), and 2M does/month by next year. That's a far cry from saying that they have the capacity to produce 60M doses annually right now.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

bgc_fan said:


> The technology and process can be quite different depending on the vaccine.


Yes I agree with that point. But its technology and it can be changed. These NRC types are the brightest in the country and they have the skills and the drive to make changes so.... back to my point near the start of this thread 

_"...Why would any government forgo the opportunity to produce a vaccine in their own country in any contract? It is doubtful that adding in such a stipulation that it would result in any material change. Even if you do not have the capabilities in the moment, as the leading party, you should be strategically thinking about the future capabilities. Complete lack of foresight or vision...._"


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

If Canada can't get its own vaccine production facility up, then they should consider shutting down or remove that National Microbiology Lab (aka Level 4 Virology facility) in Winnipeg, IMO.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> If Canada can't get its own vaccine production facility up, then they should consider shutting down or remove that National Microbiology Lab (aka Level 4 Virology facility) in Winnipeg, IMO.


No kidding......


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

afulldeck said:


> Yes I agree with that point. But its technology and it can be changed. These NRC types are the brightest in the country and they have the skills and the drive to make changes so.... back to my point near the start of this thread
> 
> _"...Why would any government forgo the opportunity to produce a vaccine in their own country in any contract? It is doubtful that adding in such a stipulation that it would result in any material change. Even if you do not have the capabilities in the moment, as the leading party, you should be strategically thinking about the future capabilities. Complete lack of foresight or vision...._"


And they are doing that with the funds to expand NRC capability and Medicago. The problem is it takes time and we probably won't see them in place until next year.

As for NRC adapting, you have to look at 2 things: manufacturer scale and the process. Right now, they have none of them. It takes time to do and the process was started back in May when the government made the announcement and funding the NRC facility upgrades.

As for Winnipeg, there's a significant difference between lab scale research and a full manufacturing capability.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I could be wrong, but weren't Moderna and the other biopharmaceutical companies already developing vaccines for the corona virus ?

I think it is easier to "ramp up" an existing program than start a new one from scratch. At some stage all the research and development needs is cash.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

afulldeck said:


> ...
> Yes let's virtual signal, order twice the number of doses and get to the back of the line.


According to the chart we ordered nearly ten doses when 2 are needed. We need to see the charts of deliveries to properly assess the competence of our government.


----------



## rsal59 (Dec 2, 2016)

If instead of wasting time on considering purchase of F35s years ago, we had focused on more essential necessities of our population, we were in a better situation today.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

Don't see what the fuss is about. Many Canadians are hesitant due to the speed of development of these vaccines. With so many ahead of us, we'll have better information on side effects from a large number of people.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Retired Peasant said:


> Don't see what the fuss is about. Many Canadians are hesitant due to the speed of development of these vaccines. With so many ahead of us, we'll have better information on side effects from a large number of people.


That's another aspect that is being overlooked, and one that companies have already stated was an issue. Canada's approval process is fairly slow, so even if we had the manufacturing capabilities now, unless we speed up the approval process, it will still take time.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Retired Peasant said:


> Don't see what the fuss is about. Many Canadians are hesitant due to the speed of development of these vaccines. With so many ahead of us, we'll have better information on side effects from a large number of people.


Good point.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> That's another aspect that is being overlooked, and one that companies have already stated was an issue. Canada's approval process is fairly slow, so even if we had the manufacturing capabilities now, unless we speed up the approval process, it will still take time.


I think that is a key aspect. There is something seriously wrong within many aspects of our government bureaucracies. Health Canada was slow to recognize the initial problem, slow to approve the rapid test, and so many other departments have been slow to do anything. Think about our procurement processes for military equipment, infrastructure project approvals, etc. There is a serious problem in our civil service and ministers unwilling to shake the sheets to improve it. It is not restricted to any political party. I think we we are doomed to mediocrity unless some hammers come down.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> I think that is a key aspect. There is something seriously wrong within many aspects of our government bureaucracies. Health Canada was slow to recognize the initial problem, slow to approve the rapid test, and so many other departments have been slow to do anything. Think about our procurement processes for military equipment, infrastructure project approvals, etc. There is a serious problem in our civil service and ministers unwilling to shake the sheets to improve it. It is not restricted to any political party. I think we we are doomed to mediocrity unless some hammers come down.


I don't think lack of speed, in some cases, is a negative .. especially when approving a new vaccine for mass use. You mention rapid test approval which are very unreliable and IMO shouldn't even be used so no loss there.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> I think that is a key aspect. There is something seriously wrong within many aspects of our government bureaucracies. Health Canada was slow to recognize the initial problem,


Possibly, but I think it's more likely a case of bad leadership.



> slow to approve the rapid test,


Which rapid test? 
Several of the rapid tests aren't suitable for a lot of uses.


> and so many other departments have been slow to do anything. Think about our procurement processes for military equipment, infrastructure project approvals, etc. There is a serious problem in our civil service and ministers unwilling to shake the sheets to improve it. It is not restricted to any political party. I think we we are doomed to mediocrity unless some hammers come down.


I think mediocrity would be a great improvement.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> I could be wrong, but weren't Moderna and the other biopharmaceutical companies already developing vaccines for the corona virus ?


What's commonly reported is that any potential corona virus vaccines for SARS etc. were in freezers in labs as no one wanted to fund the human trials when there were few to now cases being reported.

Moderna was working on their technology but AFAICT, their first vaccine attempt was started in Jan/Feb 2020, after the needed info about the covid-19 virus was published by China. If it gets approved, it will be Moderna's first vaccine.

The same group that funded Moderna's Phase 1 trial at pretty much the same time time announced they were also funding trials at a University of Queensland lab as well as Pennsylvania-based Inovio Pharmaceuticals. A late January industry conference call about emerging infectious diseases had the big pharma reps saying it was too soon for them and wanted to see what the smaller biotechs like Moderna could do before getting involved.

Presumably the combination of the progress with the US gov't Warp Speed program funding helped get more of big pharma involved but I'd have to check for confirmation.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Which rapid test?
> Several of the rapid tests aren't suitable for a lot of uses.


I have not seen recent articles that suggests limitations. Some examples:








Canadian-made rapid test for COVID-19 can be transported without refrigeration


In an Ontario factory, scientists are assembling a Canadian-made and approved rapid test for COVID-19 that requires no refrigeration and provides results in an hour.




www.ctvnews.ca








__





Ontario Newsroom







news.ontario.ca












Mississauga-based company produces rapid COVID-19 test | insauga


A Mississauga-based company has produced rapid COVID-19 tests that will be rolled out in the coming weeks. Greg Miziolek, the president of BD-Canada, told insauga.com that the company’s rapid, point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (which were recently approved by Health Canada) will be rolled...




www.insauga.com


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> ...
> 
> As for Winnipeg, there's a significant difference between lab scale research and a full manufacturing capability.


 ... of course there is a significant difference between a research lab versus full mfg facility.

But what is the point of keeping a lab doing (continuous) "research" when there's no thought of how an antidote can be produced (if there is an antidote) for some of the world's deadliest pathogens kept there? It sets a scenario where someone is playing (and likes to) with matches in the middle of a vast forest, only that forest is inhabited by creatures like us.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... of course there is a significant difference between a research lab versus full mfg facility.
> 
> But what is the point of keeping a lab doing (continuous) "research" when there's no thought of how an antidote can be produced (if there is an antidote) for some of the world's deadliest pathogens kept there? It sets a scenario where someone is playing (and likes to) with matches in the middle of a vast forest, only that forest is inhabited by creatures like us.


That's part of the short sighted thinking that leads to our current situation. "Who cares about university research if it can't be readily commercialized? Who cares about supporting scientific research if we can't immediately benefit from it?". You lose that capacity and you'll never get it back. Instead, we'll end up being a backwater country with no skill set to research infectious diseases or pathogens and be reliant on the US for expertise. Sound familiar? In fact, that's the issue right now as other countries will probably not be interested in the same issues that we may have.

The basic research is done to determine treatments and therapeutic solutions, which is primarily done by government agencies including the university. Unless you are advocating that there should be a crown corporation that commercializes these advancements, it takes private industry to do that. In case you didn't know, we did have a non-commercial company that did that, but we sold it off in 1984 because we wanted the government to get out of businesses. Otherwise, it's pharmaceutical companies. Right now, I can't think of a large domestic pharmaceutical company that isn't a subsidiary of a multi-national.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> That's part of the short sighted thinking that leads to our current situation. "Who cares about university research if it can't be readily commercialized? Who cares about supporting scientific research if we can't immediately benefit from it?". You lose that capacity and you'll never get it back.


 ... first, I think you got your perspective and assumption totally wrong on what I was trying to say. I'm all for scientific research as we're still a long way off from beating cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, HIV still, plus a long list of diseases.



> Instead, we'll end up being a backwater country with no skill set to research infectious diseases or pathogens and be reliant on the US for expertise. Sound familiar? In fact, that's the issue right now as other countries will probably not be interested in the same issues that we may have.


 ... since we're on the topic of "infectious" diseases .. I can give you a perfect example of where we dwindle away our opportunity with "research". You do recall SARs, right? Which happened in 2003, some 17 years ago. That was a cousin of Covid ... don't you think by now some 17 years later that we (experts) should be quite familiar with "coronaviruses"? Did we get a vaccine for SARs, not that I heard of. So imagine some other totally "different pathogen" escapes from our National Lab which is still being "researched", and we don't have anything resembling an anti-dote (let alone a production facility), you can appreciate where we would all be then. Dead.



> The basic research is done to determine treatments and therapeutic solutions, which is primarily done by government agencies including the university. Unless you are advocating that there should be a crown corporation that commercializes these advancements, it takes private industry to do that. In case you didn't know, we did have a non-commercial company that did that, but we sold it off in 1984 because we wanted the government to get out of businesses. Otherwise, it's pharmaceutical companies. Right now, I can't think of a large domestic pharmaceutical company that isn't a subsidiary of a multi-national.


 ... I'm not talking about "business" or commercialization. Not sure where you got the idea. You're jumping the guns here.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... first, I think you got your perspective and assumption totally wrong on what I was trying to say. I'm all for scientific research as we're still a long way off from beating cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, HIV still, plus a long list of diseases.


Then how do you explain this post?



Beaver101 said:


> If Canada can't get its own vaccine production facility up, then they should consider shutting down or remove that National Microbiology Lab (aka Level 4 Virology facility) in Winnipeg, IMO.


You directly say if we can't produce a vaccine in large quantities there is no need for this research lab ...


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... first, I think you got your perspective and assumption totally wrong on what I was trying to say. I'm all for scientific research as we're still a long way off from beating cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, HIV still, plus a long list of diseases.
> 
> ... since we're on the topic of "infectious" diseases .. I can give you a perfect example of where we dwindle away our opportunity with "research". You do recall SARs, right? Which happened in 2003, some 17 years ago. That was a cousin of Covid ... don't you think by now some 17 years later that we (experts) should be quite familiar with "coronaviruses"? Did we get a vaccine for SARs, not that I heard of. So imagine some other totally "different pathogen" escapes from our National Lab which is still being "researched", and we don't have anything resembling an anti-dote (let alone a production facility), you can appreciate where we would all be then. Dead.


Yet, you feel like if no vaccine/antidote develops, close down the facility. That runs counter what you are saying about being for scientific research. What's your timeline? 10? 20 years? You're using the point that we encountered SARS 17 years ago, so COVID should have been no problem. Cold viruses are also coronaviruses, but we're no closer to a cure for the common cold. Coronavirus is just a family of viruses, it doesn't mean that a treatment for one is applicable for another. And why did we not have a vaccine of SARS? Easy answer, it wasn't as virulent so there was no interest. When it appeared to die out, funding for research pretty much dried out. After all, isn't it a waste of money to investigate an illness that doesn't seem to be around anymore? That is generally the thinking when it comes to budget cutting. 

As for assuming something escaping the lab, well they have enough safety and security procedures to ensure that doesn't happen. When you consider that there are a lot of these facilities around the world, I'd prefer having our own facility so that we can do our own research and not be dependent on another country in case an outbreak does occur ... funny, isn't that the whole point of this thread? Being dependent on the vaccine production in other countries?



Beaver101 said:


> ... I'm not talking about "business" or commercialization. Not sure where you got the idea. You're jumping the guns here.


I'm not jumping the gun. Your whole point is that they didn't deliver a vaccine. Assuming they come up with one, then what? We outsource the production to a commercial entity who may have other priorities, which is the point of this thread. A pharmaceutical facility to produce doses at the scale that we're looking for: say 60M doses for the year, is not something you can simply set up, produce the doses, and then mothball the whole facility and fire all the workers until the next pandemic. It's something that should be continuously in operation to ensure that the products meet the standards we require. So is your solution to construct the facility and continuously produce the vaccine, even after everyone has been vaccinated?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> I have not seen recent articles that suggests limitations. Some examples:


Really nice graph here.








Fast coronavirus tests: what they can and can’t do


Rapid antigen tests are designed to tell in a few minutes whether someone is infectious. Will they be game changers?




www.nature.com





Basically they don't catch as many cases (more false negatives), and the window of detection is smaller.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Yet, you feel like if no vaccine/antidote develops, close down the facility. That runs counter what you are saying about being for scientific research. What's your timeline? 10? 20 years?


 ... a century? Maybe perpetually based on your argument that we're no closer to a cure for a common cold even. So you tell me.



> You're using the point that we encountered SARS 17 years ago, so COVID should have been no problem. Cold viruses are also coronaviruses, but we're no closer to a cure for the common cold. Coronavirus is just a family of viruses, it doesn't mean that a treatment for one is applicable for another.


... yah, but they had the opportunity to do so and continue to have that opportunity. Why didn't they? It's not like the "common-cold" has disappeared either and then the "uncommon stuff" which leads to the next point.



> *And why did we not have a vaccine of SARS? Easy answer, it wasn't as virulent so there was no interest. When it appeared to die out, funding for research pretty much dried out. After all, isn't it a waste of money to investigate an illness that doesn't seem to be around anymore?* That is generally the thinking when it comes to budget cutting.


...aren't you contradicting yourself here? Ebola, anthrax, and god-knows what else brewing there that aren't currently "virulent" so isn't it a waste of money to continue researching them ... all I'm saying/asking is what's the endgame for those kind of research?



> As for assuming something escaping the lab, well they have enough safety and security procedures to ensure that doesn't happen.


 ... well, I guess you missed the news articles about breaches (while didn't trigger an epidemic but who really knows, next time?) that have occurred there.



> When you consider that there are a lot of these facilities around the world, I'd prefer having our own facility so that we can do our own research and not be dependent on another country in case an outbreak does occur ... funny, isn't that the whole point of this thread? Being dependent on the vaccine production in other countries?


 ... I don't disagree with this. But then look at the N95 mask (non)-availability fiasco, don't you think we should have our own production facility (or something similar)? Considering that we have the most "essential material" that makes the N95 medical grade.



> I'm not jumping the gun. Your whole point is that they didn't deliver a vaccine. Assuming they come up with one, then what?


 ... I haven't even got to the point of a vaccine yet ... how about starting with an antidote first? Has an antidote been developed for anthrax, or Ebola?



> We outsource the production to a commercial entity who may have other priorities, which is the point of this thread. A pharmaceutical facility to produce doses at the scale that we're looking for: say 60M doses for the year, is not something you can simply set up, produce the doses, and then mothball the whole facility and fire all the workers until the next pandemic. It's something that should be continuously in operation to ensure that the products meet the standards we require. So is your solution to construct the facility and continuously produce the vaccine, even after everyone has been vaccinated?


... in a nutshell, the government needs to collaborate with (and have laws that require) the big pharmas to produce any kind of vaccine, much like the USA. I think the starting problem the Canadian government has is not "owning" any big pharma (for our own production) mainly because of ... you get to pick all the reasons .. and meanwhile we continue with the research on deadly yet yet nonvirulent (your word here, not mines) until the dawn of time. Seems like the experts there like to play with fire.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Then how do you explain this post?
> 
> 
> You directly say if we can't produce a vaccine in large quantities there is no need for this research lab ...


 .. different things. Not going to repeat countering your same argument/thinking as bgc.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> .. different things. Not going to repeat countering your same argument/thinking as bgc.


Not different things and wasn't expecting a counter argument when you clearly contradicted yourself. 

BTW, you didn't counter bgc_fan, you just side stepped it.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> Ebola, anthrax, and god-knows what else brewing there that aren't currently "virulent" so isn't it a waste of money to continue researching them ... all I'm saying/asking is what's the endgame for those kind of research?


Guess you never looked at any of NML's accomplishments ... 

_a promising vaccine and treatment for Ebola that were developed at NML _


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Not different things and wasn't expecting a counter argument when you clearly contradicted yourself.


 ... okay, then explain to me how I contradicted myself tehre?



> BTW, you didn't counter bgc_fan, you just side stepped it.


 ... if you say so.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Guess you never looked at any of NML's accomplishments ...
> 
> _a promising vaccine and treatment for Ebola that were developed at NML _


 ... I don't even know who NML is or even stand for. Assuming it's true, then who (aka which country) produced or will be producing the vaccine?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is the top level lab located in Winnipeg. They deal with the most dangerous viruses in the world.

The purpose of the lab seems unclear, even to the scientists.

_"Or, he adds,* it could be a question of mandate because the role of the lab has always been unclear* - some say it should just do diagnostics while others believe it should do research." _

This is the lab from which 2 Chinese scientists and their students were escorted out and had their security clearances revoked in 2019.

They were discovered to have been sending viral samples to the Wuhan lab in China, which has close connections with the Chinese military.

The RCMP are investigating and there is still secrecy around the event. The question what else did the couple send or take to China.

The Chinese lab in Wuhan is known to be a military lab, and the US has arrested or expelled scientists for trying to illegally transfer samples to it from the US.

Interesting that the COVID virus was reported to start in the Wuhan wet market just blocks from the Chinese lab, but it actually didn't start there because there were previous cases and the virus was found in drain pipes in Wuhan.

It has given rise to theories the COVID being developed by the Chinese lab after receiving samples from the lab in Winnipeg.

Groundless conspiracy theories ? Maybe....or maybe not. It is difficult to tell when the matter is held in secrecy.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/ouster-of-researchers-from-national-microbiology-lab-still-a-mystery-1.5221156











In mystery investigation of two Canadian scientists, a request for Ebola, henipavirus from the Wuhan lab


The shipment of Ebola and henipavirus samples to Wuhan has given rise to groundless conspiracy theories involving Xiangguo Qiu. But there is no evidence…




nationalpost.com


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I don't even know who NML is or even stand for. Assuming it's true, then who (aka which country) produced or will be producing the vaccine?


NML = National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg ... you know, the one you said should be closed because Canada can't mass produce a covid-19 vaccine. 

Also, why do you ask who massed produced it? Isn't the first and probably the most important step creating a vaccine or treatment?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> NML = National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg ... you know, the one you said should be closed because Canada can't mass produce a covid-19 vaccine.


 .. okay, got me here ... caffeine hasn't kicked in yet. 



> Also, why do you ask who massed produced it? Isn't the first and probably the most important step creating a vaccine or treatment?


 ... well yes but according to bgc, the point of this thread is Canada should have its "own vaccine-producing facility" of which I presume to mean "mass production". That tiny example of a vaccine/antidote/treatment (while it's "yay" for success) on Ebola ain't gonna to cut it even for an epidemic, let alone a pandemic.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> > You're using the point that we encountered SARS 17 years ago, so COVID should have been no problem. Cold viruses are also coronaviruses, but we're no closer to a cure for the common cold. Coronavirus is just a family of viruses, it doesn't mean that a treatment for one is applicable for another.
> 
> 
> ... yah, but they had the opportunity to do so and continue to have that opportunity. Why didn't they?


The big pharma companies were not sure SARS would stick around so it was mainly gov't/academic institutions funding the vaccine candidates. By the time the promising ones were ready for human trials, so few cases were being reported that all sources of funding dried up.

Keep in mind that for SARS, it was much easier to identify who was sick/contagious and it was more difficult to catch versus COVID-19.



Beaver101 said:


> It's not like the "common-cold" has disappeared either and then the "uncommon stuff" which leads to the next point.


As for the common cold, it is a range of viruses with unknown ones causing the largest share (about 40%). Some of the other families are the Rhinovirus, RSV and parainfluenza. For the corona virus family in particular, it is reported to cause 20% of common colds with mild to moderate effect. IOW, another high cost with questionable benefit and/or ability to making money.




Beaver101 said:


> ... I don't even know who NML is or even stand for. Assuming it's true, then who (aka which country) produced or will be producing the vaccine?


Developed in the Winnipeg lab, suffered from a lack of interest by big pharma companies, licensed to a US company New Links Genetics in Iowa. When New Links was absorbed by Lumos Pharma, it was put on a shelf. The 2009 West Africa Ebola outbreak brought back interest.








‘Against all odds’: The inside story of how scientists across three continents produced an Ebola vaccine


The story of the Ebola vaccine is a story of scientific grit — and researchers on three continents who toiled to achieve what was once unthinkable.




www.statnews.com






Cheers


*PS*
Interestingly they weren't looking for an Ebola vaccine but to disprove that a glycoprotein was the cause of the damage Ebola does. It was the after thought exposure of the mice to Ebola that resulted in no deaths versus the control group that all died that was key.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> It is the top level lab located in Winnipeg. They deal with the most dangerous viruses in the world.
> 
> *The purpose of the lab seems unclear, even to the scientists.*
> 
> ...


 ... this is the first time I heard/read of this comment. Just that the topic of this post got me thinking what's the purpose of having the NML here in Canada? It's like not having a back-stopper to a potential disaster given with the current pandemic (yet manageble) we're having. I don't even want to thinking beyond this ...



> Groundless conspiracy theories ? Maybe....or maybe not. It is difficult to tell when the matter is held in secrecy.
> 
> ...


 ... yep.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think there is far more to the story that we may never know, due to the outrage it would cause among the US population.

I think Trump knows and that is why he constantly derides it as the "China virus". He probably can't say any more.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> That tiny example of a vaccine/antidote/treatment (while it's "yay" for success) on Ebola ain't gonna to cut it even for an epidemic, let alone a pandemic.


You know that's only one of many things they've done but of course you'll never look into it and just state they should be closed down.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ...aren't you contradicting yourself here? Ebola, anthrax, and god-knows what else brewing there that aren't currently "virulent" so isn't it a waste of money to continue researching them ... all I'm saying/asking is what's the endgame for those kind of research?


Viruses change all the time. They could modify and then we get another outbreak, having the resources to do the research means that we can look for solutions when/if they occur. I wasn't contradicting myself, my point is that people like you think "why research when they aren't virulent any more, just cut the funding".



Beaver101 said:


> ... I don't disagree with this. But then look at the N95 mask (non)-availability fiasco, don't you think we should have our own production facility (or something similar)? Considering that we have the most "essential material" that makes the N95 medical grade.


Sure, the point is that up until this point, supply was never an issue. But let me ask you this question, are we talking about a government facility/entity, or a private sector company? That's the issue. Obviously it's not lucrative for private sector if there are no existing domestic production facilities (aside from some companies that had switched some manufacturing). If it's a government entity, then how quickly do you think that people will cut funding for it unless it is self-sufficient as a crown corporate. Or at that point, does it get privatized and then it subject to market forces and watch it disappear if it isn't competitive?

For a parallel program, just look at the Munitions Supply Program. The guarantee for supply does have a drawback. For example, Colt Canada has the right of first refusal for any small arms purchased by the government. So, for illustration, let's look at the new Ranger Rifle based on Finnish Tikka T3 CTR bolt action rifle ... acquisition price is US$2,500 / rifle. From Cabela's, the same rifle is $1,569.99. There may be some differences, but generally speaking this type of arrangement works, as long as you're fine with paying inflated prices.



Beaver101 said:


> ... I haven't even got to the point of a vaccine yet ... how about starting with an antidote first? Has an antidote been developed for anthrax, or Ebola?


Anthrax is treated with antibiotics: Treatment | Anthrax | CDC
Ebola has some perspective drugs for treatment: FDA Approves First Treatment for Ebola Virus



Beaver101 said:


> ... in a nutshell, the government needs to collaborate with (and have laws that require) the big pharmas to produce any kind of vaccine, much like the USA. I think the starting problem the Canadian government has is not "owning" any big pharma (for our own production) mainly because of ... you get to pick all the reasons .. and meanwhile we continue with the research on deadly yet yet nonvirulent (your word here, not mines) until the dawn of time. Seems like the experts there like to play with fire.


Basically what it comes down, is that you don't feel that it's worth supporting research because you think that there's a chance of an outbreak from the facility.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> how about starting with an antidote first?


You mean an effective treatment for COVID19? 
They have some, but they are expensive, and aren't much better than hope the patient lives long enough for their immune system to work.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Then how do you explain this post?
> 
> 
> You directly say if we can't produce a vaccine in large quantities there is no need for this research lab ...


 ... after a loooong thought, you're right. We need that research lab here in Canada as I think we should be on the forefront as having the world's most scientific health hub instead of the USA. For the betterment of mankind. And no need to move the NML anywhere else ... just pray there is no chance of a pathogen ever breaking out there as imagine getting labelled as the Peggy's Virus (or something to that effect). 

Now we just need to start getting our own vaccine production facility (at least one) in consideration of future generations ... EOM.


----------

