sbworcs wrote:

Pro-Brexit - EU = Bad. AZ = working to contract
Anti-Brexit - EU = Protecting citizens. AZ = breaking contract all over the place.

Well, I was totally anti-Brexit and pro-EU, but in this specific instance, the EU screwed up by threatening to implement export restrictions. The immediate reaction against the move illustrated clearly how bad a move it was.

Some members here seemed to be very happy that the EU was showing the UK who was boss while breaking the GFA which was sacrosanct during Brexit negotiations.

scbriml wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

Pro-Brexit - EU = Bad. AZ = working to contract
Anti-Brexit - EU = Protecting citizens. AZ = breaking contract all over the place.

Well, I was totally anti-Brexit and pro-EU, but in this specific instance, the EU screwed up by threatening to implement export restrictions. The immediate reaction against the move illustrated clearly how bad a move it was.

Some members here seemed to be very happy that the EU was showing the UK who was boss while breaking the GFA which was sacrosanct during Brexit negotiations.

Totally agree.

The EU appear, from what I have read, to be using this as a way of masking their own errors in vaccine rollout plans.

Unfortunately the anti-EU press in the UK are lapping it up and promoting more nonsense

sbworcs wrote:

scbriml wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

Pro-Brexit - EU = Bad. AZ = working to contract
Anti-Brexit - EU = Protecting citizens. AZ = breaking contract all over the place.

Well, I was totally anti-Brexit and pro-EU, but in this specific instance, the EU screwed up by threatening to implement export restrictions. The immediate reaction against the move illustrated clearly how bad a move it was.

Some members here seemed to be very happy that the EU was showing the UK who was boss while breaking the GFA which was sacrosanct during Brexit negotiations.

Totally agree.

The EU appear, from what I have read, to be using this as a way of masking their own errors in vaccine rollout plans.

Unfortunately the anti-EU press in the UK are lapping it up and promoting more nonsense

Having a contract with AZ seemingly requiring 400 million doses to vaccinate half of the 16 year+ population with vaccines from one supplier alone in the first half of 2021 seems like a pretty solid plan to me.

Since we know Q1 contractual deliveries are 80 million doses, that would mean AZ has to deliver ~107 million doses/month on average in April, May and June, or 3.5 million/day. Getting that into arms is no small feat in itself.

I only know the committed delivery schedule for Germany, but in Germany AZ vaccine is only ~30% of those deliveries, probably ~40% including the 100 mil doses option.

IF manufacturers uphold their end of the contract the EU should be able to supply surplus vaccine to 3rd countries in July!

Best regards
Thomas

IF manufacturers uphold their end of the contract the EU should be able to supply surplus vaccine to 3rd countries in July!

Best regards
Thomas

But doesn't the UK AZ contract state that the UK should have first deliveries from UK based production?

My query is not actually regarding the AZ vaccine but the Pfizer one - I am a supporter of the EU but they have turned a "commercial" dispute between them and the EU into a political one with the UK

sbworcs wrote:

IF manufacturers uphold their end of the contract the EU should be able to supply surplus vaccine to 3rd countries in July!

Best regards
Thomas

But doesn't the UK AZ contract state that the UK should have first deliveries from UK based production?

The contract clearly says that AZ has no competing obligations.

My query is not actually regarding the AZ vaccine but the Pfizer one - I am a supporter of the EU but they have turned a "commercial" dispute between them and the EU into a political one with the UK

Let's say 5 million doses that should have gone to the EU ended up in the UK. If AZ can not make up for that shortfall, withholding 5 million doses of another vaccine would simply make up for that, and each side would have the vaccine they should have gotten, with the UK still having a time advantage since they got vaccines earlier, followed by a stall. At the end of that, they are still on schedule, and the EU is also back on schedule.
This kinda is the sort of situation where having damages paid a few years from now doesn't do any good.

Best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

If the EMA approves Sputnik for use and thus it has proven to be safe and effective, I have no problem with that.

Is there a guarantee corners won't be cut in EMA's approval process to overcompensate the present fiasco?
Just as there was a political pressure to give preferential treatment to Sanofi, which then failed to deliver, I am concerned there will be again pressure from usual suspects to help again their eternal "partner".
But hey, enjoy your Sputnik jab. I am definitely saying out of it.

Sweden will now have the first AZ vaccine 7 of feb. The problems is "supposed to be solved"

-------------------------------------

today at 13:52 by Olivia J Berntsson
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/3J ... try=501196
As early as February 7, the first delivery of Astra Zeneca's vaccine will go to Sweden, according to vaccine coordinator Richard Bergström.

According to Bergström, the EU will also have a new meeting with the pharmaceutical company on Monday, when a new timetable is expected to be presented.

- We received a statement from Astra Zeneca's CEO yesterday who said that the problem will soon be solved. Now it remains to be seen how fast they can get up to the pace that is intended. We will have this presented on Monday, says Richard Bergström.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/3J ... onaviruset

L410Turbolet wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If the EMA approves Sputnik for use and thus it has proven to be safe and effective, I have no problem with that.

Is there a guarantee corners won't be cut in EMA's approval process to overcompensate the present fiasco?

The EMA that didn't cut corners on any vaccine or went down the emergency authorisation route? The EMA that plans a much longer authoration process for other upcoming vaccines because they are now busy with multiple vaccine authorisation processes and surveillance of the already existing ones? With an EU that didn't let a single producer negotiate full liability away? Kinda opposite from anybody else? You'd see the FDA give EUA to Sputnik before you see that, or hell freeze over.

Heck, Curavec, despite Sonfi level pressure in procurement, expects authorisation to take 3 times as long as Biontech because EMA is kinda busy now, and doesn't cut corners.

Best regards
Thomas

with the UK still having a time advantage since they got vaccines earlier, followed by a stall. At the end of that, they are still on schedule, and the EU is also back on schedule.
This kinda is the sort of situation where having damages paid a few years from now doesn't do any good.

Best regards
Thomas

I agree that it needs sorting out to try and ensure all get what is needed - I think we can all agree on that.

As mentioned before withholding the Pfizer vaccines does not necessarily just stall the UK programme, it could potentially derail it given we have countless people waiting on second doses for the vaccine to be fully effective - how do we get round that?

sbworcs wrote:

with the UK still having a time advantage since they got vaccines earlier, followed by a stall. At the end of that, they are still on schedule, and the EU is also back on schedule.
This kinda is the sort of situation where having damages paid a few years from now doesn't do any good.

Best regards
Thomas

I agree that it needs sorting out to try and ensure all get what is needed - I think we can all agree on that.

As mentioned before withholding the Pfizer vaccines does not necessarily just stall the UK programme, it could potentially derail it given we have countless people waiting on second doses for the vaccine to be fully effective - how do we get round that?

At least here the first dose is only given when the 2nd dose is already in storage on site, after all a delivery van could be involved in an accident, hence for the first 3 weeks ~50% of doses sat in storage. I would assume other countries operate under the same worst case assumptions. If not, no more that three weeks warning would suffice to plan accordingly. I don't see any way relationships would get bad enough to leave people stranded without a 2nd shot.

Best regards
Thomas

Apparently much of the bragging about how much more efficient the British vaccination program is compared to that in the EU is based on the fact it is simply aiming at giving first doses asap and amap, without keeping the second doses in reserve or administering them within the 3 week timeframe as is officially required!!!
So even a temporary cut in deliveries from the EU could spell big troubles because the UK deviated from the routine...
Not to mention it increases chances of creating resistant covid mutants!

sabenapilot wrote:

Not to mention it increases chances of creating resistant covid mutants!

Does it though? Its not antibiotics, where surviving bacteria is more resistant than those that got killed off. Either the immune systems responds effectively or not after the first shot, the 2nd shot just increases the chance of it doing so.
Since any better response by the immune system reduces the amount of copies the virus will make in a given person, and mutations being purely probabilistic, and since there isn't and selection pressure like with antibiotics, i would think getting the first shot is still better than no shot, without a downside. But I guess we need to ask Doc..

DocLightning wrote:

magic summoning spell

Best regards
Thomas

Seems the A-Z vaccine is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed:
Germany will not administer it to people aged 65 or more
President Macron said the Oxford vaccine is 'quasi-ineffective" on elderly people
and now taly has said it recommends alternatives on people above 55
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestne ... ofile=1228

sabenapilot wrote:

Seems the A-Z vaccine is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed:
Germany will not administer it to people aged 65 or more
President Macron said the Oxford vaccine is 'quasi-ineffective" on elderly people
and now taly has said it recommends alternatives on people above 55
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestne ... ofile=1228

My read is that there just isn't enough data available to make that call since not all that many oder people where part of the trial, so it is not proven effective for the age group rather than proven ineffective.

Best regards
Thomas

Just read the contract between the EU and AZ. I'm not a lawyer, but nor is whoever is advising the commission, by the looks of it. The relevant sections as far as I can tell are paras 5.1, 5.4, 5.5 and 13.1e. Can't cut and paste from the pdf, so apologies for any typos.

5.1 Initial Europe Doses Astra Zeneca shall use its best reasonable efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution ....

The initial doses are what we are concerned about - the next two paras cover options and any additional doses. So this makes it pretty clear that the agreement was best reasonable efforts, and the intention was to manufacture them at an EU plant.

The para that the EU have focussed on is 5.4

5.4 AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the vaccine at manufacturing sites located within the EU (which for the purpose of this Section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom) and may manufacture the vaccine in non-EU facilities ... provided that AZ shall provide notice of such non-EU facilities too the commission ...

OK - so basically you can manufacture it anywhere if you have to, but if it's outside the EU or UK gives us a heads up and an explanation. Which is really pointing out the fact the UK is still in a defacto state of regulatory alignment with the EU, so no need to call ahead. It's not a claim on UK manufacturing capability, any more than it's a claim on India's production. Para 5.4 also sets out the EU's role if AZ can't deliver:

... may present to AZ CMO's within the EU capable of manufacturing the vaccine doses ....

That was the contractual next step after the shortfall was announced. Is the EU acting on that? 5.5 is the clincher though:

5.5 Reporting AZ shall notify the commission as soon as (a) it selects the initial vaccine sites ...

So the manufacturing sites were specific! Unless AZ pointed them at Wrexham and the other UK site, lol. Finally, the EU points to para 13.1e:

Astra Zeneca is not under an obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any person or third party, in respect of the initial Europe doses ... that would impede complete fulfilment of its obligations under this contract.

This is so weak. As we've seen in 5.1 the Initial Europe Doses are to be supplied from the EU proper. So the contract with the UK does not impede that - since we are not getting doses from Europe. The EU would have been well aware of the UK contract at the time. It just looks like one of the poorest claims ever. There are unsubstantiated allegations of supply going to the UK - but even if that were true, it may be legitimate if the EU nation it was destined for didn't pay for the storage (this vaccine is being supplied on a cost basis after all) - see para 8.5.

So the EU doesn't have a leg to stand on legally, morally there approach has been despicable too. They have invested one seventh of the US and UK into vaccine development, have negotiated long and hard to save pennies and push back on liability. They've delayed to the point where the ramp up issues which have been common to all suppliers - at least Pfizer, Janssen and Moderna - have bit them on the arse. And which manufacturer do the choose to go ballistic at? The one that is supplying them vaccines at cost. Disgusting.

Why are they doing it? If they had brought in their vaccine blockade on the UK what would they have gained? The bulk of the UK's vaccines will be AZ from here on in. Janssen and Novavax won't hit till the start of H2 - and Novavax will be produced in the UK. We don't get Moderna until April, and in relatively small quantities. Pfizer drove our initial vaccination programme, and there will be a few weeks worth in country waiting for the MHRA to inspect and approve, for the rest of H1 you're looking at a million a week roughly (scaling up the leaked Scottish data). So about 16m doses, and another 1m Moderna. Minus the 8m addtional doses AZ offered - so 9m doses. It's a drop in the ocean to the 445m population of the EU. So they must have been planning on screwing over quite a few countries - unless securing additional vaccine isn't their motive.

The down sides are numerous. If you were a Pharmaceutical company would you be comfortable having your production in a bloc that block your exports in a fit of pique? The damage that has been done in NI with Article 16? And what if the countries affected were to retaliate? The supply chains are international - I know at least one UK firm is a supplier to either Moderna or Pfizer (I was looking the other night, should have bookmarked it). Disrupt them and you affect vaccine supply globally.

I honestly think this is down to the pressure the Commission is coming under. They screwed up royally in vaccine procurement, and it will cost many lives. The economic hit of a return to normality coming later than its western peers will be tough. And all this while Brexit Britain finally get's something right on covid. It's going to hurt, but I was reading an Italian politician suggesting it could be existential for the EU. His argument was that the countries on the periphery view the EU as a beacon of competence. Screw up the most important thing they've had to do, probably in the lifetime of the bloc, and that illusion will be shattered. Just at the point they have to get looking at the real structural issues that have been put on the back burner due to Brexit - the North South divide, the core issues around monetary union, corporate tax avoidance, the rise of fascism in Hungary and Poland, lack of agility in responding to crisis in foreign affairs etc. It's going to be a wild ride, and they won't want a covid related rise in Euroscepticism.

It looks like they've backed away from the brink, hopefully calmer heads will prevail, and the UK will look to see what it can do to help. Ursula von der Leyen resigning would be a good move, but there's the democratic deficit to contend with.

By the way, I voted remain in the referendum.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... iasco.html

Any truth to this Daily Mail article or are the blowing things out of proportion?

Two immediate points that spring to mind;

1. You say that the EU case is weak. But firstly the statement about 'no competing obligations' is untrue.

2. Why is the UK government not releasing it's contract with AZ.

If Van der Leyden needs to resign over this, then how is Boris still in Downing Street. Deaths in Germany about 60,000 and deaths in the UK about 100,000.

bennett123 wrote:

Two immediate points that spring to mind;

1. You say that the EU case is weak. But firstly the statement about 'no competing obligations' is untrue.

2. Why is the UK government not releasing it's contract with AZ..

Or why did AZ insist to keep the contractual delivery schedule blacked out. ... we know they have to deliver 400 million doses by June 30th, 80 million of which by end of Q1.

Best regards
Thomas

Despite all the noise and the manufactured outrage by the english speaking medias, the commission has published its regulation here.

You will notice that tidbit:

The vaccine manufacturers that have concluded APAs shall provide electronically to the the Commission (at the following address: [email protected]) and to the competent Member State’s authorities the relevant data concerning their exports in the last three months prior to the entry into force of this Regulation together with the first request for authorisation. This information shall include the volume of exports of COVID-19 vaccines, the final destination and final recipients and a precise description of the products. The absence of such information may lead to refusal of export authorisations.

So Az and the like will have to give to the EU the numbers produced, exported and to who. And the since November.

And by the way, it is not a VdL decision, it is an official EU 27 regulation.

bennett123 wrote:

Two immediate points that spring to mind;

1. You say that the EU case is weak. But firstly the statement about 'no competing obligations' is untrue.

2. Why is the UK government not releasing it's contract with AZ.

If Van der Leyden needs to resign over this, then how is Boris still in Downing Street. Deaths in Germany about 60,000 and deaths in the UK about 100,000.

With your second point, the question is why do they need to, other than to see if the Commission can use it as ammo against AstraZeneca to cover what appears to be weaknesses in the contract they signed?

As for Von Der Leyen, I found this damning article about her in Der Spiegel...

https://www.spiegel.de/international/eu ... 6e64701802

I see parallels between her and Chris Grayling, a politician within the Tories who has form for making an absolute mess whilst in charge of their department yet emerge unharmed. Lots on Grayling if you go digging, but here’s the take from the New York Times...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/03/worl ... es-uk.html

You can find tons of articles on any politicians. The things to consider are what weight and what momentum they have. Der Spiegel bad mouthing UVdL is nothing unusual and is just ignored.

scbriml wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

Pro-Brexit - EU = Bad. AZ = working to contract
Anti-Brexit - EU = Protecting citizens. AZ = breaking contract all over the place.

Well, I was totally anti-Brexit and pro-EU, but in this specific instance, the EU screwed up by threatening to implement export restrictions. The immediate reaction against the move illustrated clearly how bad a move it was.

Some members here seemed to be very happy that the EU was showing the UK who was boss while breaking the GFA which was sacrosanct during Brexit negotiations.

Not happy, but if your government is trying to undermine obligations between the EU and AZ, which benefit the UK, I don’t mind to close the borders between the UK and the EU, even it’s just to sent a clear message to all involved.

Perhaps the UK is not releasing it because they have something to hide.

UVL should go immediately. Her botched vaccine roll out plus her disastrous action on Northern Ireland has made the EU look like fools internationally. Any decent politician in this situation would go.

bennett123 wrote:

Two immediate points that spring to mind;

1. You say that the EU case is weak. But firstly the statement about 'no competing obligations' is untrue.

2. Why is the UK government not releasing it's contract with AZ.

If Van der Leyden needs to resign over this, then how is Boris still in Downing Street. Deaths in Germany about 60,000 and deaths in the UK about 100,000.

Why does the UK government need to release it’s contract with AZ?

Lets get the Indian one out at the same time and have a look at that shall we.

This had nothing to really do with the UK politically until the EU dragged us into it with their bull in a china shop actions on NI.

Arlon640

You feel that Boris and co are competent?.

Perhaps they should be transparent to show that they have nothing to hide.

Perhaps that is why they are refusing to release this information.

bennett123 wrote:

Arlon640

You feel that Boris and co are competent?.

Perhaps they should be transparent to show that they have nothing to hide.

Perhaps that is why they are refusing to release this information.

Where did I say Boris and co were competent? Doesn’t change the EU mess up.

Olddog wrote:

Despite all the noise and the manufactured outrage by the english speaking medias, the commission has published its regulation here.

You will notice that tidbit:

The vaccine manufacturers that have concluded APAs shall provide electronically to the the Commission (at the following address: [email protected]) and to the competent Member State’s authorities the relevant data concerning their exports in the last three months prior to the entry into force of this Regulation together with the first request for authorisation. This information shall include the volume of exports of COVID-19 vaccines, the final destination and final recipients and a precise description of the products. The absence of such information may lead to refusal of export authorisations.

So Az and the like will have to give to the EU the numbers produced, exported and to who. And the since November.

And by the way, it is not a VdL decision, it is an official EU 27 regulation.

So basically EU will check that UK and EU get the same number of vaccines consider population since november.

So if UK has got to big part UK now will wait until EU getting equal supplies?

That what I read between the lines.

The same as Friday but more with more elegance.

In the meantime UK basically stays with its original stance; UK first.
UK can support EU after UK has been vaccinated;

So the conflict are actually back on the table without NI and ROI article 16 involved.

Suppliers in EU will have to very good answers why UK has got more supplies then EU and in AZ case connected with not be able to deliver agreed quantities until mid summer while sending to UK in full speed.

UK will in 2-3 weeks time be furious when AZ now cannot continue production in UK because of AZ EU plants do not longer supply UK.


-------------------------------



UK will only help EU if it does not affect our vaccine timetable, says Liz Truss
Minister hints that any diversion of supplies may not happen before UK has offered vaccine to all adults


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -liz-truss

Arion640 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Arlon640

You feel that Boris and co are competent?.

Perhaps they should be transparent to show that they have nothing to hide.

Perhaps that is why they are refusing to release this information.

Where did I say Boris and co were competent? Doesn’t change the EU mess up.

I am actually very surprised on VDL considering that she seems increadable competent. I think that it went to fast.

But directly when she recognized the error she took the repsonibility and adjusted this back to a pure UK EU vaccine row.

Just go back 2 month and see how Boris acted in the WA break down. Has he still admitted the errors he did? Has Tory admitted their errors?

So now can we go back to the discussion of the AZ contracts?

Arlon640

You said that any decent politician would go.

So unless you think that he has been in any way competent, then presumably you think that he should also go.

Olddog wrote:

You can find tons of articles on any politicians. The things to consider are what weight and what momentum they have. Der Spiegel bad mouthing UVdL is nothing unusual and is just ignored.

Perhaps so. Though with something as high profile as this and the fallout continuing, it could only be a matter of time before Von Der Leyen’s position becomes untenable if this isn’t resolved quickly.

That’s for the EU to decide though. The UK is, as some are always keen to highlight in here, no longer at the table so Von Der Leyen’s position isn’t the UK’s problem.

olle wrote:

UK will in 2-3 weeks time be furious when AZ now cannot continue production in UK because of AZ EU plants do not longer supply UK.

We’ll see. Von Der Leyen specifically took to Twitter late on Friday night after her phone call with Boris Johnson specifically stating there won’t be any restrictions on exports where contracts are being fulfilled, which I took as also including vaccine deliveries, so I don’t anticipate any shortages in the coming few weeks in the UK.

olle wrote:

So now can we go back to the discussion of the AZ contracts?

Yes. I would be interested to see who within the Commission ultimately ends up accountable for this sorry mess. Ultimately, it’s for the Commission to sort out with AstraZeneca. It’s not really the problem of the UK or anyone else unless their supply becomes collateral damage in this ongoing row.

sabenapilot wrote:

Seems the A-Z vaccine is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed:
Germany will not administer it to people aged 65 or more
President Macron said the Oxford vaccine is 'quasi-ineffective" on elderly people
and now taly has said it recommends alternatives on people above 55
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestne ... ofile=1228

Macron also said he had no data to back his claims up. Very Trumpian!

Boeing74741R wrote:

We’ll see. Von Der Leyen specifically took to Twitter late on Friday night after her phone call with Boris Johnson specifically stating there won’t be any restrictions on exports where contracts are being fulfilled, which I took as also including vaccine deliveries, so I don’t anticipate any shortages in the coming few weeks in the UK.
.

Yup, von der Leyen saying something is not going to happen historically means it is definitely going to happen.
Don't be too surprised if she looks straight into a camera on monday, saying that as far as the EU knows the UK doesn't have a contract with AZ, we haven't seen one after all, and if they have one it must be secondary to the EU contract, because ours with AZ says so, and the EU acts fully in accordance with her tweet by blocking exports.

Best regards
Thomas

Even before the vaccine got a chance to beat the pandemic, commerce and politics already beat every vaccine.

I started listing fault lines, here are a few

Non-profit vs Profit
Cheap vs Expensive
Refrigerator vs Ultra Deep Freezer
mRNA vs non-mRNA
Moderna vs Prizer
EU-US vs UK
UK-US vs EU
China vaccine vs Rest of the world
Russia vaccine vs Rest of the world
India (foreign) vaccine vs India (domestic) vaccine

The list is too long.

Can we get back to beating the pandemic.

Boeing74741R wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Seems the A-Z vaccine is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed:
Germany will not administer it to people aged 65 or more
President Macron said the Oxford vaccine is 'quasi-ineffective" on elderly people
and now taly has said it recommends alternatives on people above 55
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestne ... ofile=1228

Macron also said he had no data to back his claims up. Very Trumpian!

Perhaps he's trying his best to solve the supply and demand problem. If you can't increase the supply then you can at least try to reduce the demand. Don't think he should be too worried though; less than 1 in 3 people in France are willing to take the vaccine (and his comments have probably reduced it further):

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covi ... gion=World

dtw2hyd wrote:

Even before the vaccine got a chance to beat the pandemic, commerce and politics already beat every vaccine.

I started listing fault lines, here are a few

Non-profit vs Profit
Cheap vs Expensive
Refrigerator vs Ultra Deep Freezer
mRNA vs non-mRNA
Moderna vs Prizer
EU-US vs UK
UK-US vs EU
China vaccine vs Rest of the world
Russia vaccine vs Rest of the world
India (foreign) vaccine vs India (domestic) vaccine

The list is too long.

Can we get back to beating the pandemic.

Thanks. Fully agree.

bennett123 wrote:

Two immediate points that spring to mind;

1. You say that the EU case is weak. But firstly the statement about 'no competing obligations' is untrue.

I assume this is aimed at me, and referring to para 13.1e. This refers explicitly to the "Initial Europe Doses", which we know from para 5.1 were to be manufactured in the EU proper. How can an agreement with the UK to procure doses from the UK supply chain be a "competing obligation"? And, to turn it on it's head, at the point this contract was signed, the existing UK agreement was well known. So are you telling me that AZ and the EU signed this contract knowing day 1 that AZ was in violation of it? It doesn't pass the smell test either.

bennett123 wrote:

2. Why is the UK government not releasing it's contract with AZ.

It's pretty obvious. Seeing in black and white how many vaccines we've ordered would be terrible optics globally, especially with respect to the global south. Having said that, why should they? This is Russell's Teapot: "the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others". Same as the allegations of US election fraud.

bennett123 wrote:

If Van der Leyden needs to resign over this, then how is Boris still in Downing Street. Deaths in Germany about 60,000 and deaths in the UK about 100,000.

Beats me. I left the Labour Party over its treatment of Corbyn, I'm hardly going to defend that prick. But I will say this, the UK threatened to roll back on some aspects of the WA - but in spite of pressure from the ERG and DUP we've not gone as far as to threaten use of Article 16 - in spite of having a stronger case to, with the (hopefully temporary) issues around the Irish Sea "border". She went a step further. As someone else said, it's an issue for the EU now, but if the European Parliament wants to show solidarity with the Republic of Ireland, a vote of censure would be a good idea.

IMHO, AZ efficacy(there lack off) over 65 is a sampling anomaly exacerbated by placebo group not getting sick.

Older population in general were/are more careful following lockdown, physical distancing, mask and hygiene rules better than younger.

https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/status ... 30/photo/1

I think that the main discussion here AZ EU is the "no competing obligations" statement.

If there is, and it seems to be reading the info from UK government, and AZ is delivering to UK first and EU if possible then AZ is in contract breach with EU.

EU demands that production on EU soil and in case of at least AZ their other production units shall produce fairly to customers as EU, UK and other customers.

Now this is not seems to be the case and EU is securing evidence if there is true or not. If it is true it securing its and other countries fair share of production.

Very simple.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Even before the vaccine got a chance to beat the pandemic, commerce and politics already beat every vaccine.

I started listing fault lines, here are a few

Non-profit vs Profit
Cheap vs Expensive
Refrigerator vs Ultra Deep Freezer
mRNA vs non-mRNA
Moderna vs Prizer
EU-US vs UK
UK-US vs EU
China vaccine vs Rest of the world
Russia vaccine vs Rest of the world
India (foreign) vaccine vs India (domestic) vaccine

The list is too long.

Can we get back to beating the pandemic.

Beating the pandemic...... from the virus originate in China, then the US military, then WHO saying China involved / not involved, EU follow suit in its declaration, fatality numbers around the world up for grabs, countries using testing numbers to make themselves look better, yes testing numbers, building hospitals overnight and not staffing them, using national mandates to make ventilators then deciding they are a bad idea, saying a malaria drug can be used then cannot be used because its only been around for decades and we need more research on its side effects, then we roll out vaccines that's only been tested for months, anyone notice how many billions have been spent while infections and deaths continue to grow?
A rant not personally aimed, but really, fighting this pandemic has always been about politics and playing political games. Let's just see how many new colonial powers appear after this is all over, if ever....some may like the current status quo, does wonders for climate change.

France and Germany have threatened legal action against the Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca in the row over a shortage of coronavirus vaccine in the EU.

Talks between the European commission and the vaccine supplier are continuing over the lack of supply, with Brussels raising concerns that doses may have been diverted from plants in Belgium and Germany to the UK.



Clément Beaune, France’s Europe minister, said the firm could face “penalties or sanctions” if found to have given priority to British orders of the vaccine.

He said: “These are serious accusations, so it is not done lightly. I am not saying that there is a problem but if there is a problem and that we have favoured other destinations, other countries – for example the UK over us – then we will defend our interests.’

“Our contracts need to be respected. Respecting contracts are not moral commitments, they are legal commitments. Penalties or sanctions can be triggered in every contract.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... rtageeu-uk

dtw2hyd wrote:

IMHO, AZ efficacy(there lack off) over 65 is a sampling anomaly exacerbated by placebo group not getting sick.

"May be a sampling anomaly" would be correct. Reporting isn't that the vaccine isn't effective for older people, but that it isn't proven to be effective (yet). For use authorisation you need to proof a minimum effectiveness. Those enormous error bars are real.

Best regards
Thomas

According to the Belgian prime minister, production problems in the Belgian az plant are due to a lack supplies. He hinted at the supplies for production going elsewhere.

The framing here in the local media here is not in terms of uk-eu, but the media is critical of EU procurement policy first (this has been an ongoing story since December) and of az (and sometimes Pfizer) second. UK is mentioned, but not as the bad agent, that is az.

As for EU competence, being a citizen of a small country not ordering syringes in time, waiting till, basically, now to take action, I doubt we would have any vaccine supply at all without the EU.
The EU will throw it's weight around, use whatever peaceful means possibly to secure what it percieves as it's share of vaccines (regardless the fine print in the contracts). There is simply too much at stake and public pressure is too high.
But having weight to throw around is the reason many smaller EU countries are EU members, and most are probably relieved not having to deal with pharma companies directly. What is happening now is case for more EU involvement rather than against. Big countries on the other hand, might feel different.

Admit to not reading every line in the contract, but does the contract state the date the EU would approve the vaccine, was AZ trying to force the EU hand in approval as a lot of other companies did for various products during the height of the lockdown?
So far no one seems to think it is bad optics to have vaccines supplies in storage awaiting approval while other countries who have already approved cannot receive those supplies, and no I am not talking about the UK. WHO and PAHO are facilitating deliveries to other third countries.

olle wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Arlon640

You feel that Boris and co are competent?.

Perhaps they should be transparent to show that they have nothing to hide.

Perhaps that is why they are refusing to release this information.

Where did I say Boris and co were competent? Doesn’t change the EU mess up.

I am actually very surprised on VDL considering that she seems increadable competent. I think that it went to fast.

But directly when she recognized the error she took the repsonibility and adjusted this back to a pure UK EU vaccine row.

Just go back 2 month and see how Boris acted in the WA break down. Has he still admitted the errors he did? Has Tory admitted their errors?

So now can we go back to the discussion of the AZ contracts?

I agree Ursula seemed quite competent - much more competent that drunk Juncker. However, almost blowing up Ireland is very very serious, ROI also blindsided. A matter of this matter should warrant a resignation. Boris again, many mistakes.

The AZ contracts are simple, nothing to do with the UK. Just between AZ-EU. EU’s fault for not ordering enough.

Arion640 wrote:

EU’s fault for not ordering enough.

The EU ordered more than enough Arion640; it's A-Z which doesn't want to deliver them, claiming sudden production issues at one plant...

In a nutshell:
The EU ordered 100m initial doses from A-Z, coming from 4 plants (2 of which in the UK), none of which had any previous obligations according to A-Z (it's litterally in the contract)
The moment the EU calls upon A-Z to start to deliver these doses, A-Z suddenly says it can't deliver them, because there's a production issue in 1 plant in Belgium.
"Oh, dear", said the EU, "then tell us what the new delivery schedule will be, based on production from the 3 remaining plants'.
"No", said A-Z, "it's all just going to come from the other single EU plant".
And after a week of dodging questions from and meetings with the EU, it emerges the 2 British plants suddenly seem to have an obligation to produce for Britain first, despite having explicitly stated such was not the case in the contract with the EU....

As has been said: not only has A-Z signed up to something it knew was not correct (since the UK deal was signed some 3 weeks ahead of the deals it signed with the rest of Europe); but also -and this is something the British press vehemently refuses to discuss so far because it knows it is not going to make the UK look good at all- has the UK government clearly engaged in vaccine nationalism in the sole contract for doses it could source domestically, while at the same time having to rely and strongly push for international solidarity for the multitude of doses it had to source from the EU at the same time....

Luckily the new measures taken by the EU will quickly correct the unfair consequences, because at least in my country we're now expecting the contracted doses as from early next week which will bring us ahead of our target vaccination sheme, and as 'olle' reported, the Swedish government is also now saying the problem is now solved.

sabenapilot wrote:

Luckily the new measures taken by the EU will quickly correct the unfair consequences, because at least in my country we're now expecting the contracted doses as from early next week which will bring us ahead of our target vaccination sheme, and as 'olle' reported, the Swedish government is also now saying the problem is now solved.

One could almost get the impression someone quietly told AZs management that they may very well face prosecution and prison time if they don't deliver after signing the contract they did, if the shortfall is beyond what real production problems could justify.

Best regards
Thomas

Dupli wrote:

The EU will throw it's weight around, use whatever peaceful means possibly to secure what it percieves as it's share of vaccines (regardless the fine print in the contracts). There is simply too much at stake and public pressure is too high.

Indeed, in the end it's not about what the contract says, but what the EU think it says.
Clearly the EU feels betrayed by A-Z (and possibly also the UK, going by the hints to 'other countries') and is clearly not just going to let it happen.
Which is why it has quickly legislated to override whatever consequences the contracts may have.
Law always breaks any contract obligations that may exists, so this is now the new reality and since most of the vaccines are going to be produced under their jurisdiction, it's also the new reality for most other countries, whether they like it or not.
Unless they are on the exception list that is, but if you read through the new EU directive, they've gone to great lengths at carefully cutting out the UK from it.
It mentions the obvious cases like the EEA and Switzerland, it also talks about micronations like Monaco and even the Vatican, as well as isolated overseas territories of the Union, it excludes the Eastern European countries which have a safety and cooperation agreement with the Union and a whole range of third world countries and others will be spared too, but there's one clear void on the map: the UK.
That's because the EU is obviously after something here, also evidenced by the fact they not only ask for notifications of export in future, but all manufacturers also need to open their books on deliveries over the past 3 months: that way the EC will simply reconstruct the total number of vaccines the UK has received from the EU...
No more need to see the UK contract with A-Z even: the EU already knows there's a 'Britain first' clause in it by logical deduction and it will now know much the UK got out of the EU...
That's obviously with a purpose.

tommy1808 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Luckily the new measures taken by the EU will quickly correct the unfair consequences, because at least in my country we're now expecting the contracted doses as from early next week which will bring us ahead of our target vaccination sheme, and as 'olle' reported, the Swedish government is also now saying the problem is now solved.

One could almost get the impression someone quietly told AZs management that they may very well face prosecution and prison time if they don't deliver after signing the contract they did, if the shortfall is beyond what real production problems could justify.

Best regards
Thomas

Let's say were VERY lucky as Europeans to have contracted as ONE, because imagine this would have been done by each memberstate directly as was initially the plan!
A-Z (and the UK) would have gotten away with their cheating and fraud by simply spraying a lot of mist like they initially did and playing the others against each other to try to put the blame elsewhere. With a single regulator with an eye for even the smallest of detail and almost unlimited powers to legislate on trade, the cunning plan seems to have failed.

May I remind you to provide a link to a source when stating facts? Thanks.