AstraZeneca PLC (AZN)

[Arborbridge]

Of course, the message will be it will not sell in the USA ..so what? The AZN vaccine will be sold around the World. It has the reputable names of AZN and Oxford University attached to it, it is practical regarding storage requirements and it is cheaper than Pfizer's offering.

Suppose the US does not approve it. Now suppose the US requires visitors to show documentation that they have been vaccinated and the AZN one is not on the approved list.

That makes the AZN vaccine less attractive versus Pfizer and the others.

That's a very Trumpish trick If the Oxford vaccine received some sort of worldwide certification from an appropriate body, that seems unlikely.

Mind you, there will be an enormous anti-AZN campaign of disinformation. Inject yourself with a product of the chimp's runny nose?

Arb.

[scrumpyjack]

The other important point not highlighted is that no one who had the vaccine, but got CV, needed hospital treatment. If it is 100% effective in stopping Covid being serious, that is pretty good?

[Bouleversee]

Of course, the message will be it will not sell in the USA ..so what? The AZN vaccine will be sold around the World. It has the reputable names of AZN and Oxford University attached to it, it is practical regarding storage requirements and it is cheaper than Pfizer's offering.

Suppose the US does not approve it. Now suppose the US requires visitors to show documentation that they have been vaccinated and the AZN one is not on the approved list.

That makes the AZN vaccine less attractive versus Pfizer and the others.

I think that would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Sounds more like Trump policy than Biden policy. In any event, I think it is quite likely that the AZN vaccine will be largely used on people who are not likely to be visiting the US in the near future.

[scrumpyjack]

After the FAA's performance re the Boeing 737 Max, I suspect people round the world will put more credence in Oxford University and Astrazeneca than in the FDA. Federal regulators have not inspired confidence.

[Wizard]

Why on earth did this news sent the s.p. down around 2%. So far as I could understand from R4 discussions, with 1.5 doses it is just as effective as the others and has the advantage of not needing to be kept at such low temperatures. I know that at this stage they are doing it on a not-for-profit basis but we have known that all along and there must be some benefit in future years.

Monabri is correct, I reckon. For some reason, the news people keep emphasising that it is "only" 70% effective, which sounds like a failure. Why do the Brits always like to do themselves down?

I gather the original idea was that better than 50% would be useful, and the idea of 90% would have been considered improbable. 70% is amazing, but because of these silly new hounds reporting scientists (who are clearly not sales people) AZN is on the back foot trying to explain that actually "it's all rather good" - which in Brit speak means excellent.

Another problem for the share price might be because it is gradually sinking in that AZN have promised to supply the stuff at cost to developing countries, which is a heck of a lot of profit foregone, I assume - though I gather they will have some element of variable pricing for richer countries in mitigation.

Arb.

I spent a lot of yesterday shouting at the TV. It is 90% effective, not 70%. Why give two higher amounts when one lower amount followed by a higher amount gives a better result? So it is the 90% outturn that is the important one. Plus, that means the UK's order of 100 million higher doses can now vaccinate 66 million people rather than 50 million. That is an oustanding result!

[Dod101]

The flu vaccine all we oldies get each winter is only 40/60% effective I think it said on TV last evening so 70% is very good. Everyone needs to watch their language because it was also said I think on the news last evening that a 90% success rate was incredible. I do not think that they meant they were throwing the Pfizer result into doubt but simply that it was excellent.

I think the Oxford/AstraZeneca announcement was just British understatement because scientists (most of them anyway) are not used to the full glare of publicity and especially at the trial stage of a drug. Like all three possible vaccines, this would surely normally be early days and not a time to be trumpeting a success.

Dod

[Arborbridge]

I spent a lot of yesterday shouting at the TV. It is 90% effective, not 70%. Why give two higher amounts when one lower amount followed by a higher amount gives a better result? So it is the 90% outturn that is the important one. Plus, that means the UK's order of 100 million higher doses can now vaccinate 66 million people rather than 50 million. That is an oustanding result!

I expect. like me, you noticed that the approached had morphed to something better by the 10 o'clock news. By this time, someone had spotted the slant was wrong and they majored more on the 90% and the various advantages. They even had a "health correspondent" (who looked rather unhealthy being clinically overweight) talking to camera labouring the good points and explaining them to make up for the losing ground earlier. Plus an explanation for the anti-vax brigade as to how the vaccine was developed so quickly.

I read somewhere else on the BBC website that the reason medicines take so long to develop isn't always the science: it's the applying for funds and grants and convincing the powers that be to go to the next step which takes the time, often years between steps.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Like all three possible vaccines, this would surely normally be early days and not a time to be trumpeting a success.

Dod

You are right, of course: there's a long road ahead to collect data in. The various performance differences will only come out after months or years of use. Pretty obvious factors are all little known at this stage, and won't be known until many people have been vaccinated.

Arb.

[Bouleversee]

Extract from today's coverage in The Times:

"The Oxford team hope that a low-dose initial injection combined with a full-dose booster could be 90% effective."

Sounds a bit wishy-washy. I hope lots of things that never seem to happen.

[Arborbridge]

Extract from today's coverage in The Times:

"The Oxford team hope that a low-dose initial injection combined with a full-dose booster could be 90% effective."

Sounds a bit wishy-washy. I hope lots of things that never seem to happen.

It wasn't wishy washy. It was a definite result from a small sub-set. One of the things which always happens with drug development is establishing the most effective dose, (as I understand it) and I would expect this to be an on-going investigation until the best options are settled.

Arb.

[scrumpyjack]

There is an interesting article on Bloomberg giving several reasons why the lower initial dose might give better immunity.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... f=mwlrlP7l

[monabri]

Article in The Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/1 ... -efficacy/


AZN/Oxford £2.23 ( one dose...maybe 1.5 the most effective).

Pfizer £29.47 ( 2 jabs)

Moderna £23.99 per dose ( price may drop)...how many doses required?


So, there's a BIG financial incentive there from US pharma in the relative price differentials. One could also get "all political " over this and big US pharma wishing to gain a bigger foothold in the NHS....but I won't go there.

[Dod101]

From an investment point of view, presumably what we are interested in on this thread, AstraZeneca have said they will be producing the vaccine not for profit so long as the pandemic exists, thus accounting for some of the figures quoted and also for the cool reaction from the market.

Dod

[Bouleversee]

From an investment point of view, presumably what we are interested in on this thread, AstraZeneca have said they will be producing the vaccine not for profit so long as the pandemic exists, thus accounting for some of the figures quoted and also for the cool reaction from the market.

Dod

Yes, but that was made known at the outset so should not have influenced the s.p. yesterday. Haven't yet checked what it is doijng today.

[Dod101]

It is up a very little last time I looked.

Dod

[Arborbridge]

Develop/manufacture a world class pandemic beating drug, and you would expect some sort of reward, as a company. AZN's shareprice is 1.5% higher than in January! But then, Pfizer's price hasn't faired better - in fact it is down since January.

Arb.

[scrumpyjack]

"not for profit so long as the pandemic exists"

Apart from the profit issue, producing a successful vaccine which is used by billions of people worldwide would have major reputational benefits.

On the profit issue, it will help expand their vaccines business which will no doubt be profitable producing other vaccines, and indeed this one once the pandemic is over.

Lastly there can be quite a lot of 'wriggle room' in the 'not for profit' claim. How much company overhead costs can be allocated to the vaccine production? There are direct costs, but also indirect costs, overhead costs etc etc. I am not saying AZN will exploit this unduly but there will certainly be some benefit financially to the company, compared to their position without the vaccine.

[Bouleversee]

All of that, so why should the s.p. not be responding positively?

I wonder what's happening to Glaxo's vaccine effort. Their s.p. is nothing to write home about either.

[Bouleversee]

Actually, I think I heard on the lunchtime news that AZN would not be charging certain overseas countries for their vaccine even after the first year. Does anyone have any detail on that? Perhaps he should get Boris to fund that as part of our overseas aid programme.

[scrumpyjack]

All of that, so why should the s.p. not be responding positively?

I wonder what's happening to Glaxo's vaccine effort. Their s.p. is nothing to write home about either.

There's an old stock market saying 'Buy the rumour, sell the news'

https://www.thebalance.com/what-does-bu ... an-1344971

A stock gets bought in the expectation of/run up to a positive event, and when it happens the stock falls.

Added to that, in AZN's case, maybe people expected 90%-95% efficacy so when it is announced as 70% efficacy, there is much disappointment