COVID-19 vaccine update: Pfizer may be the frontrunner, but Canada has hedged its bets - The Conversation CA | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Business

COVID-19 vaccine update: Pfizer may be the frontrunner, but Canada has hedged its bets – The Conversation CA

Published

 on


Pfizer and BioNTech have surprised the world, and given it hope, with the preliminary results of the Phase 3 clinical trial of their coronavirus vaccine.

They announced on Nov. 9 that the early analysis of the data from the Phase 3 clinical trial, which is still ongoing, showed the vaccine was 90 per cent effective. The unexpectedly high figure still needs to be confirmed in larger numbers and over time. The vaccine is simple to manufacture, but its storage is more complex (the vaccine must be kept at very low temperatures). Large-scale production is expected to begin shortly.

Laboratories around the world are in a race to produce a COVID-19 vaccine. While the finish line is now in sight for Pfizer and BioNTech, the World Health Organization (WHO) lists 202 vaccine candidates, 47 of which are in human trials.

Canada has not put all its eggs in one basket in its plan to protect Canadians from the novel coronavirus. In addition to Pfizer and BioNTech, it has signed six other contracts: Moderna, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, AstraZeneca and Medicago. Canada recently announced it had reserved 56 million additional doses of vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech, on top of the 20 million doses it had already purchased, bringing its order to 76 million.

Overview of vaccine types in clinical trials, based on WHO Nov. 3 update.
(World Health Organization)

Canada has secured access to a total of 414 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines from different sources. More importantly, Canada has ensured that it has diversified the types of vaccines it will have.

Scientists are using different platforms to develop COVID-19 vaccines. Some vaccine candidates in clinical trials exploit mechanisms already used in other vaccines. Others are based on innovative approaches that have never been tested before. Here is an overview of the different types of vaccines.

The platforms used for COVID-19 vaccine candidates in clinical trials. Strategies already in use are shown in the red box while novel approaches are shown in the green box.
Images created using Mol* (Almo and al. (2020) PBD ID 6X6P. Figure created with BioRender.com

Inactivated vaccines

Inactivated vaccines have been in use since the 1880s. The viruses in these vaccines have been rendered inactive by chemical treatment, as with SARS-CoV-2 candidate vaccines, or by physical treatment.

With this type of vaccine, the immune system encounters the virus in its entirety. It can mount a defence when it detects the viral spike protein (also called spicule or S-protein), envelope and nucleoprotein.

Currently, seven inactivated vaccine candidates are being tested in humans. Of these, three are in Phase 3 clinical trials. Unlike Phase 1 and Phase 2, which are used to evaluate a vaccine’s tolerability, safety and ability to induce an immune response, a Phase 3 clinical trial allows scientists to test its efficacy.

Recombinant proteins

Recombinant protein vaccines fall into two categories: subunit and virus-like particle vaccines.

For subunit protein vaccines, a viral protein is produced in large quantities in a living “factory,” such as a bacterium, plant, mammalian or insect cell. When the viral protein is presented to the immune system, it triggers a reaction.

The 13 subunit vaccine candidates currently in Phase 1, 2 or 3 clinical trials are composed of either the entire spike protein or a specific portion of the spike protein called the ‘receptor binding domain’.

Virus-like particle vaccines are composed of a set of viral proteins that mimic the shape of the virus. This particle “pseudo-virus” is an empty shell, devoid of genetic material and non-infectious, but this does not prevent the immune system from recognizing it.

Viral vector vaccines

This approach is based on using a virus that is non-pathogenic or of little danger to humans. In the case of the 12 vaccine candidates of this type currently being studied in humans, the viral vectors are mostly adenoviruses. They represent a large group of viruses that can cause colds and conjunctivitis, among other symptoms.

Used as Trojan horses, these viruses are modified to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein following vaccination. Viral vector vaccines are a recent strategy, but were used in the development of the Ebola virus vaccine.

RNA and DNA vaccines

Despite differences in their composition, DNA and mRNA (messenger RNA) both contain genetic information for protein production. While an RNA molecule can directly produce that information, DNA requires an intermediate transcription step.

RNA or DNA vaccine candidates differ from other strategies in two ways. First, it is a novel strategy: there is no RNA or DNA vaccine on the market. Second, they are the only vaccine candidates composed solely of genetic material.

In the case of RNA vaccines, messenger RNA molecules are wrapped in lipid nanoparticles. Once the vaccine is injected, the RNA serves as a template for the body’s cells to produce a viral protein — the spike protein, to be precise.

DNA vaccines, on the other hand, are made up of a circular DNA (called a plasmid). This DNA will be transcribed into RNA, which will again serve as a template.

Six RNA vaccine candidates are currently being tested in humans, two of which are in Phase 3. The five DNA vaccine candidates are in Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials.

Canada in the vaccine race

The following is an overview of each company that has an agreement with the federal government, the type of vaccine in development and the number of doses reserved by Canada.

Pfizer/BioNTech: 76 million doses reserved

BioNTech, in Germany, and Pfizer, in the United States, are jointly developing an RNA vaccine. This candidate encodes for the manufacture of the spike protein.

The Phase 3 clinical study is continuing with more than 43,000 patients in the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Turkey and South Africa. The vaccine is reported to be more than 90 per cent effective and has not caused any serious side-effects.

An overview of Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium in Puurs, Belgium. Pfizer announced that initial results of its COVID-19 vaccine show 90 per cent efficacy.
(AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

Despite these encouraging preliminary results, Pfizer and BioNTech have not yet crossed the finish line. Detailed data have not been published and questions remain, including the age and risk factors of the vaccinated individuals and the duration of protection. The clinical trial is ongoing and more data will be analyzed.

Moderna: 56 million doses reserved

The vaccine candidate of Moderna, a U.S.-based biotechnology company, is an RNA vaccine. Once injected, it allows the expression of the spike protein. Currently in Phase 3 clinical trials, the vaccine is being tested in 30,000 individuals in different regions across the United States.

Johnson & Johnson: 38 million doses reserved

Johnson & Johnson’s candidate is a viral vector vaccine composed of a human adenovirus that has been modified to render it incapable of multiplying, but capable of expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Phase 3 clinical trial, which began in September 2020, is taking place in several countries and will involve 60,000 participants.

AstraZeneca/University of Oxford: 20 million doses reserved

Oxford University is partnering with AstraZeneca on a viral vector vaccine. The vaccine candidate is composed of a modified chimpanzee adenovirus that expresses the spike protein. It is in Phase 3 clinical trials.

Novavax: 76 million doses reserved

The vaccine candidate of Novavax, a U.S. company, is based on the recombinant protein strategy. It is composed of the spike protein and an adjuvant, a booster used in vaccines to increase the immune response. The Phase 3 clinical trial began in September 2020 and involves 10,000 participants in the United Kingdom.

Some examples of commercially available vaccines that use the different types of vaccines described.
Created from Servier Medical art (http://servier.com/Powerpoint-image-bank). Servier Medical Art by Servier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0-Unported License

Sanofi/GSK: 72 million doses reserved

The candidate from the French company Sanofi and the British giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is composed of an adjuvant and recombinant version of the spike protein, produced in a living factory (baculoviruses). Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials are currently testing its safety, tolerability and ability to induce an immune response.

Medicago: 76 million doses reserved

Developed by the Québec-based company Medicago, this vaccine candidate is composed of virus-like particles. These are produced in plants infected with bacteria that have been genetically modified to produce several SARS-CoV-2 proteins. These plants thus become production plants.

Researchers can extract the particles from the leaves and purify them. Medicago’s vaccine candidate is currently in Phase 1 clinical trials and results are also promising.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Natural gas producers await LNG Canada’s start, but will it be the fix for prices?

Published

 on

 

CALGARY – Natural gas producers in Western Canada have white-knuckled it through months of depressed prices, with the expectation that their fortunes will improve when LNG Canada comes online in the middle of next year.

But the supply glut plaguing the industry this fall is so large that not everyone is convinced the massive facility’s impact on pricing will be as dramatic or sustained as once hoped.

As the colder temperatures set in and Canadians turn on their furnaces, natural gas producers in Alberta and B.C. are finally starting to see some improvement after months of low prices that prompted some companies to delay their growth plans or shut in production altogether.

“We’ve pretty much been as low as you can go on natural gas prices. There were days when (the Alberta natural gas benchmark AECO price) was essentially pennies,” said Jason Feit, an advisor at Enverus Intelligence Research, in an interview.

“As a producer, it would not be economic to have produced that gas . . . It’s been pretty worthless.”

In the past week, AECO spot prices have hovered between $1.20 and $1.60 per gigajoule, a significant improvement over last month’s bottom-barrel prices but still well below the 2023 average price of $2.74 per gigajoule, according to Alberta Energy Regulator figures.

The bearish prices have come due to a combination of increased production levels — up about six per cent year-over-year so far in 2024 —as well as last year’s mild winter, which resulted in less natural gas consumption for heating purposes. There is now an oversupply of natural gas in Western Canada, so much so that natural gas storage capacity in Alberta is essentially full.

Mike Belenkie, CEO of Calgary-headquartered natural gas producer Advantage Energy Ltd., said companies have been ramping up production in spite of the poor prices in order to get ahead of the opening of LNG Canada. The massive Shell-led project nearing completion near Kitimat, B.C. will be Canada’s first large-scale liquefied natural gas export facility.

It is expected to start operations in mid-2025, giving Western Canada’s natural gas drillers a new market for their product.

“In practical terms everyone’s aware that demand will increase dramatically in the coming year, thanks to LNG Canada . . . and as a result of that line of sight to increased demand, a lot of producers have been growing,” Belenkie said in an interview.

“And so we have this temporary period of time where there’s more gas than there is places to put it.”

In light of the current depressed prices, Advantage has started strategically curtailing its gas production by up to 130 million cubic feet per day, depending on what the spot market is doing.

Other companies, including giants like Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. and Tourmaline Oil Corp., have indicated they will delay gas production growth plans until conditions improve.

“We cut all our gas growth out of 2024, once we’d had that mild winter. We did that back in Q2, because this is not the right year to bring incremental molecules to AECO,” said Mike Rose, CEO of Tourmaline, which is Canada’s largest natural gas producer, in an interview this week.

“We moved all our gas growth out into ’25 and ’26.”

LNG Canada is expected to process up to 2 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per day once it reaches full operations. That represents what will be a significant drawdown of the existing oversupply, Rose said, adding that is why he thinks the future for western Canadian natural gas producers is bright.

“That sink of 2 Bcf a day will logically take three-plus years to fill. And then if LNG Canada Phase 2 happens, then obviously that’s even more positive,” Rose said.

While Belenkie said he agrees LNG Canada will lift prices, he’s not as convinced as Rose that the benefits will be sustained for a long period of time.

“Our thinking is that markets will be healthy for six months, a year, 18 months — whatever it is — and then after that 18 months, because prices will be healthy, supply will grow and probably overshoot demand again,” he said, adding he’s frustrated that more companies haven’t done what Advantage has done and curtailed production in an effort to limit the oversupply in the market.

“Frankly, we’ve been very disappointed to see how few other producers have chosen to shut in with gas prices this low. . . you’re basically dumping gas at a loss,” Belenkie said.

Feit, the analyst for Enverus, said there’s no doubt LNG Canada’s opening will be a major milestone that will help to support natural gas pricing in Western Canada. He added there are other Canadian LNG projects in the works that would also provide a boost in the longer-term, such as LNG Canada’s proposed Phase 2, as well as potential increased demand from the proliferation of AI-related data centres and other power-hungry infrastructure.

But Feit added that producers need to be disciplined and allow the market to balance in the near-term, otherwise supply levels could overshoot LNG Canada’s capacity and periods of depressed pricing could reoccur.

“Obviously selling gas at pennies on the dollar is not a sustainable business model,” Feit said.

“But there’s an old industry saying that the cure for low gas prices is low gas prices. You know, eventually companies will have to curtail production, they will have to make adjustments.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 25, 2024.

Companies in this story: (TSX:TOU; TSX:AAV, TSX:CNQ)

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Corus Entertainment reports Q4 loss, signs amended debt deal with banks

Published

 on

 

TORONTO – Corus Entertainment Inc. reported a fourth-quarter loss compared with a profit a year ago as its revenue fell 21 per cent.

The broadcaster says its net loss attributable to shareholders amounted to $25.7 million or 13 cents per diluted share for the quarter ended Aug. 31. The result compared with a profit attributable to shareholders of $50.4 million or 25 cents per diluted share in the same quarter last year.

Revenue for the quarter totalled $269.4 million, down from $338.8 million a year ago.

On an adjusted basis, Corus says it lost two cents per share for its latest quarter compared with an adjusted loss of four cents per share a year earlier.

The company also announced that it has signed an deal to amend and restate its existing syndicated, senior secured credit facilities with its bank group.

The restated credit facility was changed to reduce the total limit on the revolving facility to $150 million from $300 million and increase the maximum total debt to cash flow ratio required under the financial covenants.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 25, 2024.

Companies in this story: (TSX:CJR.B)

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Hiring Is a Process of Elimination

Published

 on

Job seekers owe it to themselves to understand and accept; fundamentally, hiring is a process of elimination. Regardless of how many applications an employer receives, the ratio revolves around several applicants versus one job opening, necessitating elimination.

Essentially, job gatekeepers—recruiters, HR and hiring managers—are paid to find reasons and faults to reject candidates (read: not move forward) to find the candidate most suitable for the job and the company.

Nowadays, employers are inundated with applications, which forces them to double down on reasons to eliminate. It’s no surprise that many job seekers believe that “isms” contribute to their failure to get interviews, let alone get hired. Employers have a large pool of highly qualified candidates to select from. Job seekers attempt to absolve themselves of the consequences of actions and inactions by blaming employers, the government or the economy rather than trying to increase their chances of getting hired by not giving employers reasons to eliminate them because of:

 

  • Typos, grammatical errors, poor writing skills.

 

“Communication, the human connection, is the key to personal and career success.” ― Paul J. Meyer.

The most vital skill you can offer an employer is above-average communication skills. Your resume, LinkedIn profile, cover letters, and social media posts should be well-written and error-free.

 

  • Failure to communicate the results you achieved for your previous employers.

 

If you can’t quantify (e.g. $2.5 million in sales, $300,000 in savings, lowered average delivery time by 6 hours, answered 45-75 calls daily with an average handle time of 3 and a half minutes), then it’s your opinion. Employers care more about your results than your opinion.

 

  • An incomplete LinkedIn profile.

 

Before scheduling an interview, the employer will review your LinkedIn profile to determine if you’re interview-worthy. I eliminate any candidate who doesn’t have a complete LinkedIn profile, including a profile picture, banner, start and end dates, or just a surname initial; anything that suggests the candidate is hiding something.  

 

  • Having a digital footprint that’s a turnoff.

 

If an employer is considering your candidacy, you’ll be Google. If you’re not getting interviews before you assert the unfounded, overused excuse, “The hiring system is broken!” look at your digital footprint. Employers are reading your comments, viewing your pictures, etc. Ask yourself, is your digital behaviour acceptable to employers, or can it be a distraction from their brand image and reputation? On the other hand, not having a robust digital footprint is also a red flag, particularly among Gen Y and Gen Z hiring managers. Not participating on LinkedIn, social media platforms, or having a blog or website can hurt your job search.

 

  • Not appearing confident when interviewing.

 

Confidence = fewer annoying questions and a can-do attitude.

It’s important for employers to feel that their new hire is confident in their abilities. Managing an employee who lacks initiative, is unwilling to try new things, or needs constant reassurance is frustrating.

Job searching is a competition; you’re always up against someone younger, hungrier and more skilled than you.

Besides being a process of elimination, hiring is also about mitigating risk. Therefore, being seen as “a risk” is the most common reason candidates are eliminated, with the list of “too risky” being lengthy, from age (will be hard to manage, won’t be around long) to lengthy employment gaps (raises concerns about your abilities and ambition) to inappropriate social media postings (lack of judgement).

Envision you’re a hiring manager hiring for an inside sales manager role. In the absence of “all things being equal,” who’s the least risky candidate, the one who:

  • offers empirical evidence of their sales results for previous employers, or the candidate who “talks a good talk”?
  • is energetic, or the candidate who’s subdued?
  • asks pointed questions indicating they’re concerned about what they can offer the employer or the candidate who seems only concerned about what the employer can offer them.
  • posts on social media platforms, political opinions, or the candidate who doesn’t share their political views?
  • on LinkedIn and other platforms in criticizes how employers hire or the candidate who offers constructive suggestions?
  • has lengthy employment gaps, short job tenure, or a steadily employed candidate?
  • lives 10 minutes from the office or 45 minutes away?
  • has a resume/LinkedIn profile that shows a relevant linear career or the candidate with a non-linear career?
  • dressed professionally for the interview, or the candidate who dressed “casually”?

An experienced hiring manager (read: has made hiring mistakes) will lean towards candidates they feel pose the least risk. Hence, presenting yourself as a low-risk candidate is crucial to job search success. Worth noting, the employer determines their level of risk tolerance, not the job seeker, who doesn’t own the business—no skin in the game—and has no insight into the challenges they’ve experienced due to bad hires and are trying to avoid similar mistakes.

“Taking a chance” on a candidate isn’t in an employer’s best interest. What’s in an employer’s best interest is to hire candidates who can hit the ground running, fit in culturally, and are easy to manage. You can reduce the odds (no guarantee) of being eliminated by demonstrating you’re such a candidate.

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. You can send Nick your questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version