The Sanofi facility in Toronto is the former Connaught Labs that was sold off by Mulroney. They produce DPT vaccines for the global market, but it was pointed to as an example of “Canada doesn’t produce vaccines”.
The feds have since invested in the plant to help response to Influenza.
https://ipolitics.ca/2020/12/08/sanofi-wont-use-its-canadian-facility-to-make-a-covid-vaccine/
Yes, good point. And that was over 30 years ago. It was approved by the Conservative cabinet of the day. It’s almost like the lack of vaccine facilities in Canada is a complex issue that occurred over decades, and can’t be entirely blamed on a single politician in office today.
I’m perplexed as to why anyone would think that Canada could have (starting in early 2020) suddenly developed our own home-made and packaged vaccine using some sort of “existing facilities”. All of the information I can find certainly does not show any evidence of this.
So I played with a very (very) dumb model to see “effective” immunity
| Pop | Shots | Effective immunity | Immune | Immunity | Doses | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | Pop | % | ||
| 330,000,000 | 38% | 0% | 62% | 0% | 70% | 90% | 0 | 0 | 184,140,000 | 184,140,000 | 56% | 409,200,000 |
| 330,000,000 | 14% | 48% | 38% | 0% | 70% | 90% | 0 | 110,880,000 | 112,860,000 | 223,740,000 | 68% | 409,200,000 |
| 38,000,000 | 50% | 46% | 4% | 0% | 70% | 90% | 0 | 12,236,000 | 1,368,000 | 13,604,000 | 36% | 20,520,000 |
| 38,000,000 | 73% | 0% | 27% | 0% | 70% | 90% | 0 | 0 | 9,234,000 | 9,234,000 | 24% | 20,520,000 |
| 38,000,000 | 50% | 4% | 46% | 0% | 70% | 90% | 0 | 1,064,000 | 15,732,000 | 16,796,000 | 44% | 36,480,000 |
| 38,000,000 | 6% | 48% | 46% | 0% | 70% | 90% | 0 | 12,768,000 | 15,732,000 | 28,500,000 | 75% | 53,200,000 |
It’s interesting to see that had Canada only gone for a pure 2 dose model with the same number of doses as currently available) would have possibly had a worse overall immunity level. The broadness provides a decent cover. The problem is that herd immunity is tagged to 75%.
Playing with the model if Canada focused on getting to a ~48/46% split in 1/2 doses we’d be there. That’s about 12 weeks out, assuming 1.4 million doses available/injected per week.
Massive caveats here of course - I don’t even play an epidemiologist on Facebook.
I’m not blaming or relieving Mulroney of responsibility for the current day issue, simply that is the facility that the finger-pointing on both sides revolves around. We’ve been too quick to rely on global supply chains for too long.
You’re right. It’s a long standing, complex issue.
This is what I was talking about, and a link I already posted::
Ftom the article:
Trudeau claimed the new NRC facility would be ready by the end of 2020, so Pnuvax wasn’t needed:
This PnuVax? That’s…that’s not an encouraging webpage and this is not great either.
"Our team has over 30 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry, from research to full scale production."
You know what is interesting? The following from the HESA COMMITTEE MEETING held on Feb 22, 2021
Larry Macguire is the Conservative MP on the committee and Dr. John Lewis is from the University of Alberta and Entos Pharmaceuticals
So Phase Three trials…that puts them in the class as medicago’s planet based covid vaccination Phase 3 trial state. Which I note is not currently being jabbed into arms in Canada despite hitting Phase 3 in March
Personally I think the Cabinet, and Health Canada, chickened out when it came to vaccinations and lacked the bold decisiveness that other ministries showed. Revenue Canada built and deployed CERB faster than anyone could have foreseen. However, even the guy running a pharmaceutical shop says funding at the beginning would have meant vaccinations in phase 3, maybe, by Feb/March.
So be bold and maybe get vaccinations in March/April. Rely on stable global supply chains and get vaccinations in April/May with everyone else. I can see that being a tricky choice to make.
Thanks for this article; It helps to explain where you’re coming from.
I respect the scientists quoted by the Globe and Mail article, but recognize that they are offering opinions with the benefit of some hindsight.
I think we did pretty well in diversifying our purchases - we ordered a LOT of vaccine from a wide varieties of companies and countries early on - before we knew much about them or which would be more effective. This was the prudent way to go, IMO, rather than putting all of our eggs into the “we’ll do it all ourselves thank you very much” basket.
Maybe, we might have been able to develop a home grown vaccine a month or two earlier. And this assumes we could have gotten the packaging of the vaccine lined up as well - this is a major part of the complex business. Maybe. Might have.
Instead, we diversified our strategies - and I’m pretty happy to have gotten the Pfizer last week.
The Economist keeps a list of the best performing countries by percentage of adults who have received one and two doses. Canada recently made its first appearance on the list on the strength of those who have now received one dose. But all the other countries on the list had high percentages receiving two doses whereas few in Canada have.
In the US, politics remains the biggest factor in non-vaccination. Almost everyone who received a first dose has already received a second dose.
International comparisons of health have their limits. It is good many Canadians want to be vaccinated. People are doing what they can with the available resources. In my town, a significant portion of promised vaccines disappear as other places are suddenly deemed higher relevance. Canada has done okay. Not fantastic. Most health care workers have not received a second dose yet. The significance of changing second dose timing is unknown and this may not matter much. Or might.
Early studies have been done, and more are underway, so it’s not like this is currently a total unknown.
I think this British study has been cited elswhere here on the dope: It may well turn out that Canada’s decision to delay the 2nd dose was the right one.
The research found that extending the second dose interval to 12 weeks increased the peak SARS-CoV-2 spike specific antibody response 3.5-fold compared to those who had the second vaccine at three weeks. Although the peak cellular immune responses were lower after the delayed second vaccine, responses were comparable between the groups when measured at a similar time point following the first dose.
The team concluded that extending administration of the second Pfizer vaccine to 12 weeks potentially enhances and extends antibody immunity, which is believed to be important in virus neutralisation and prevention of infection.
That might be true but it’s an accidental success. I mean I’ll take it but even so…
We had to try for a broad 1st shot/delayed 2nd shot because we didn’t have sufficient supply to really try do anything else.
Very true. The initial decision was based on the assumption that delaying the 2nd shot would lead to a DECREASED immune response overall, and POORER anitbody immunity overall. But the numbers said that even given this, and the initial lower supply levels, it was better for the population as a whole to get the first shot in as many arms as possible.
Now it appears that delaying the 2nd shot might actually lead to a BETTER immune response. Happy accident to be sure, and I’ll take it, but the initial decision was still the right one, given the available data and vaccine supply at the time of the decision.
Yeah, I do not think it was a bad decision under the circumstances. But let’s not pretend we know everything about it.
No, we absolutely do not know everything about it. I cited ONE study, and although it contains good news, it’s the tip of the iceberg in this area. (edit; I was replying mainly to your wording of “unknown”. I acknowledge we don’t know everything, but neither is it currently unknown)
Doctors learn to be skeptical of early studies. Again, it was a reasonable decision under circumstances which were less than ideal. You read a lot of studies, you know they sometimes mean less or prove less than one might hope. But better supportive than abortive.
It matters when they measured the antibody response in both cohorts. I did not see this in the article on a quick perusal. The data applies to English over 80 who received Pfizer for both shots. The number tested is small and not sufficiently powered to conclude very much. But certainly worth a closer look.
The announced it a couple of days ago but I guess it’s official now. I think, given the option, and considering the study results, that I’ll ask for Pfizer for my second dose (my first was AZ). And with the 16 week gap shortened to 12, ideally I’ll be able to get the second jab the week of July 19.
They made this official today in BC as well.
I won’t. I’ll take AZ again. I see no reason to not do so. It’s designed to work with itself and I’ll go that way.
You and me both, I’m due the same time as you