Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10641
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:14 pm

marcelh wrote:
but you just seem to ignore the fact that the UK has "annexed" the Dutch production site of AZ to claim it as part of the "UK production chain".

To make sure I have this one correct, the EU while Brexit negotiations were ongoing was able to ensure that the UK walked back every single one of their red lines, but as soon as the UK left the EU they were able to mandate that a EU factory be included in UK production chain? How was such a contract approved by the EU?
If the EU regulators did not know, why exactly was the entire factory not closed down when the contract was revealed?
I get other posters claiming AZ should be held for not delivering on its EU contract, but you seem to be saying this is more than just a commercial contract.
 
Ertro
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:16 pm

marcelh wrote:
2. The contracts have been periodically renegotiated as timescales have slipped - hence the date on the UK contract


I think in every case it is the final version of signed contract that really matters and whatever happened before then is irrelevant like for example if the contracts are renegotiated like you said then the earlier versions are not valid any more and should not be looked at.

par13del wrote:
but as soon as the UK left the EU they were able to mandate that a EU factory be included in UK production chain? How was such a contract approved by the EU?


Maybe it was not approved and that is the whole point.
Last edited by Ertro on Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:20 pm

I am here, scratching my head, reading all the excuses and blaming our European friends are basically tossing around for their horrible and miserable and catastrophic vaccine rollout. It goes on to show that how the huge bureaucracy in Europe is with so many governments and government entities, look at the UK. Good for them of getting rid of that.

Europe is a great proof that huge government bureaucracy doesn't work, since the start of the pandemic they have managed this horribly, and till this day the vaccine rollout too.

In the meantime down here in Florida, the laughingstock of the world, we have been leading normal lives for almost 10 months, and I am getting knocked on my door from people telling me in my local church there are vaccine campaigns. The age requirement lowered to 50, and in some places to 40 https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local ... -covid-19/

They got so much vaccine that there aren't enough people to get around.

Operation warp speed was a huge success (thanks to the Trump admin), and our local governments have managed to do this right. We will get out of this by summer, thankfully.

Really wish Europe gets its act together and solves their issues fast, I was looking forward to an Europe summer vacation this year, but I see it won't be till 2022, at least.
“It’s easy to confuse ‘what is’ with ‘what ought to be,’ especially when ‘what is’ has worked out in your favor.” Tyrion Lannister
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14430
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:21 pm

par13del wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Words are cheap. In practice the EU does exactly what you suggest and exports about as much vaccine as it uses. Even the proposed new rules would block exports only to places with lower infection numbers/higher vaccination rates.

best regards
Thomas

To be clear, what exactly are you saying, that the EU as a trading bloc is exporting vaccines or that the EU as a regulatory trade body is allowing private companies with contracts to non-EU governments to fulfill their contractual obligations?


Since AZ has a contractual obligation vs. the EU it is both at the same time, such a move would make AZ fail all obligations equally, and judged by the proposed rules, where it does the least damage in terms of deaths.

Just want to be sure as you have previously said that the EU should put AZ in court for not meeting its obligations and perpetuating fraud, such thoughts would not be logical is at the same time you use political measure to ensure that contracts to other countries are broken.


I see no point taking AZ to court regarding the deliveries itself, i.e. damages or such, since that will only be ultimately resolved when everything is said and done. I mean criminal investigations against the management.

It would also in no way make sure contracts to other countries are broken, AZ overselling its capacity made sure they have to break contracts, so far the EU has only allowed AZ to put most of that shortfall on the EUs shoulder.

Or are you responsible for the breached contract if you happen to find your stolen goods on Ebay and prevent the seller from shipping it to the buyer?

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10641
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:25 pm

Ertro wrote:
marcelh wrote:
2. The contracts have been periodically renegotiated as timescales have slipped - hence the date on the UK contract


I think in every case it is the last signed contract that really matters and whatever happened before then is irrelevant like for example if the contracts are renegotiated like you said then the earlier versions are not valid any more and should not be looked at.

par13del wrote:
but as soon as the UK left the EU they were able to mandate that a EU factory be included in UK production chain? How was such a contract approved by the EU?


Maybe it was not approved and that is the whole point.

So in the first case, the first one is whoever signed the last contract update since all others prior do not count? Ok, I don't agree but lets agree to disagree.

In the second case if illegal, close down the factory. Since the whole point of Brexit was for the UK to have different standards on wages, labor rights, environmental protection, etc, there is no way that a vaccine being produced for UK standards would be acceptable for the EU, or so I have been told in the numerous Brexit threads, so shut down would seem to be the best choice, not what is taking place today, mass confusion.
 
Ertro
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:33 pm

par13del wrote:
In the second case if illegal, close down the factory. Since the whole point of Brexit was for the UK to have different standards on wages, labor rights, environmental protection, etc, there is no way that a vaccine being produced for UK standards would be acceptable for the EU, or so I have been told in the numerous Brexit threads, so shut down would seem to be the best choice, not what is taking place today, mass confusion.


You are not looking at this from a constructive point of view.
IF BMW factory sells a car to USA using USA standard headlights that are not legal on EU roads, then the BMW factory needs to be shut down. Okay.

Some others want to look at this from a most constructive point of view and for several months EU has tried to be more constructive than others.
Last edited by Ertro on Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14430
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:33 pm

par13del wrote:
Ertro wrote:
marcelh wrote:
2. The contracts have been periodically renegotiated as timescales have slipped - hence the date on the UK contract


I think in every case it is the last signed contract that really matters and whatever happened before then is irrelevant like for example if the contracts are renegotiated like you said then the earlier versions are not valid any more and should not be looked at.

par13del wrote:
but as soon as the UK left the EU they were able to mandate that a EU factory be included in UK production chain? How was such a contract approved by the EU?


Maybe it was not approved and that is the whole point.

So in the first case, the first one is whoever signed the last contract update since all others prior do not count? Ok, I don't agree but lets agree to disagree..


Of course those contracts would still exist. AstraZeneca only signed on August 27th that no competing obligations, contractual or otherwise, do exist. And they would know, wouldn´t they.

Which is the clincher. Even if those contracts exists, and i have no doubt they do, AZ made knowingly false statements in a supply agreement. Something usually called fraud, espchially when money changes hands because of that.
Since the EU didn´t know about those obligations, it can, in good conscience, pretend they don´t exist when they decide their course of action.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
AirbusCheerlead
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:20 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:53 pm

Some signs that the UK and EU could find a solution to their spat that might work for both sides?

"On Sunday, the defence secretary, Ben Wallace, gave more than a hint that initially doses made in the Netherlands and then the UK could be shared, and that joint investment in scaling up production was on the cards.
“We could absolutely work together to continue to maximise production,” he told The Andrew Marr show. “We’re exploring where else we can grow the supply chain, whether at home or abroad.”"
https://amp.theguardian.com/society/202 ... zeneca-row

Or "Britain ready to share Dutch-made vaccine with EU" and "Britain is prepared to share its Dutch-made AstraZeneca vaccine supplies to prevent the EU implementing a blanket export ban on Covid-19 jabs to the UK, The Times understands."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ben- ... -prr09dqdb (only read the part without subscription).
 
art
Posts: 3980
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 3:18 pm

AirbusCheerlead wrote:
Some signs that the UK and EU could find a solution to their spat that might work for both sides?


Good news. Co-operating beats squabbling any day of the week!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10641
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 3:27 pm

Ertro wrote:
par13del wrote:
In the second case if illegal, close down the factory. Since the whole point of Brexit was for the UK to have different standards on wages, labor rights, environmental protection, etc, there is no way that a vaccine being produced for UK standards would be acceptable for the EU, or so I have been told in the numerous Brexit threads, so shut down would seem to be the best choice, not what is taking place today, mass confusion.


You are not looking at this from a constructive point of view.
IF BMW factory sells a car to USA using USA standard headlights that are not legal on EU roads, then the BMW factory needs to be shut down. Okay.

Some others want to look at this from a most constructive point of view and for several months EU has tried to be more constructive than others.

So it is constructive for politicians to be making threats against a vaccine maker, threats against third countries all while having legitimate questions about whether a vaccine has the potential to cause blood clots resulting in hesitancy?
Ok, a bit more clear based on your explanation.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10641
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 3:33 pm

AirbusCheerlead wrote:
Some signs that the UK and EU could find a solution to their spat that might work for both sides?
Or "Britain ready to share Dutch-made vaccine with EU" and "Britain is prepared to share its Dutch-made AstraZeneca vaccine supplies to prevent the EU implementing a blanket export ban on Covid-19 jabs to the UK, The Times understands."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ben- ... -prr09dqdb (only read the part without subscription).

Politics again, the EU official with support from Merkel and Marcon has already stated that they would bar the exports, so I guess rather than saying they would not receive due to a ban it is better to say they will be shared.
At least there is transparency and not just political cover, good job.

Now we just have to see whether the citizens will take the AZ jab available or wait until supplies of the other vaccines become available, that unfortunately, is the key point in the protection game.
 
User avatar
Dano1977
Posts: 745
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 3:35 pm

Seen on another forum...

From Politico EU.....

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-...eca-contracts/

How the UK gained an edge with AstraZeneca’s vaccine commitments

....AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot made the argument that the U.K. had better vaccine supply because the U.K. signed an agreement for vaccines months earlier than the EU. Formally, this isn’t true: The U.K. contract was signed on August 28, while the EU’s was signed a day earlier on August 27.

However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said.

One official close to the U.K. contract said the agreement began as an email in April from the U.K. government saying it would provide £65 million to help the University of Oxford execute its production plan. It later evolved into a fully-fledged contract between the government and the British-Swedish company, which also might explain why it took until August for the contract to be signed.

Most important, however, is that it meant that the British government was “effectively a major shareholder” in the jab’s development as early as April. After Oxford and AstraZeneca agreed to team up at the end of April, for example, the British government filled seats on Oxford-AstraZeneca joint liaison committees.

“Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.”

This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines....
The average EU official - he has the organising ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10641
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 3:43 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines....

I think that is already understood, what is in question is whether AZ had the ability to deliver those doses within the timelines negotiated, as some have stated, whether they sold the same doses twice.
The other thing overlooked is how much time did AZ have to play with because the UK approved the vaccine before the EU, did they take that to mean that they did not have to start building up EU supplies until they approved?
 
art
Posts: 3980
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 3:52 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
“Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.”

This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines....


Did those countries know about AZ's arrangement with the UK government when they signed up for AZ vaccine? If not, why were they not made aware of it?
 
marcelh
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:05 pm

Dano1977 wrote:
Seen on another forum...

From Politico EU.....

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-...eca-contracts/

How the UK gained an edge with AstraZeneca’s vaccine commitments

....AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot made the argument that the U.K. had better vaccine supply because the U.K. signed an agreement for vaccines months earlier than the EU. Formally, this isn’t true: The U.K. contract was signed on August 28, while the EU’s was signed a day earlier on August 27.

However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said.

One official close to the U.K. contract said the agreement began as an email in April from the U.K. government saying it would provide £65 million to help the University of Oxford execute its production plan. It later evolved into a fully-fledged contract between the government and the British-Swedish company, which also might explain why it took until August for the contract to be signed.

Most important, however, is that it meant that the British government was “effectively a major shareholder” in the jab’s development as early as April. After Oxford and AstraZeneca agreed to team up at the end of April, for example, the British government filled seats on Oxford-AstraZeneca joint liaison committees.

“Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.”

This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines....


And to make it more interesting, a part of those vaccins for the British market are produced in the EU:

https://nos.nl/artikel/2368414-deel-in-nederland-geproduceerde-vaccins-naar-vk-door-britse-afspraken.html in Dutch

Last april, the Dutch company Halix entered the consortium led bij the Univerity of Oxford and became part of the "British production chain".
 
marcelh
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:11 pm

par13del wrote:
marcelh wrote:
but you just seem to ignore the fact that the UK has "annexed" the Dutch production site of AZ to claim it as part of the "UK production chain".

To make sure I have this one correct, the EU while Brexit negotiations were ongoing was able to ensure that the UK walked back every single one of their red lines, but as soon as the UK left the EU they were able to mandate that a EU factory be included in UK production chain? How was such a contract approved by the EU?
If the EU regulators did not know, why exactly was the entire factory not closed down when the contract was revealed?
I get other posters claiming AZ should be held for not delivering on its EU contract, but you seem to be saying this is more than just a commercial contract.


It had nothing to do with Brexit, but when a Dutch production site entered the consortium led by the University of Oxford, this became part of the "UK production chain".

https://nos.nl/artikel/2368414-deel-in-nederland-geproduceerde-vaccins-naar-vk-door-britse-afspraken.html in Dutch.

You may say it's a commercial contract between a production site and the vaccin developer, but there was also money from the UK government involved.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14430
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:23 pm

marcelh wrote:
par13del wrote:
marcelh wrote:
but you just seem to ignore the fact that the UK has "annexed" the Dutch production site of AZ to claim it as part of the "UK production chain".

To make sure I have this one correct, the EU while Brexit negotiations were ongoing was able to ensure that the UK walked back every single one of their red lines, but as soon as the UK left the EU they were able to mandate that a EU factory be included in UK production chain? How was such a contract approved by the EU?
If the EU regulators did not know, why exactly was the entire factory not closed down when the contract was revealed?
I get other posters claiming AZ should be held for not delivering on its EU contract, but you seem to be saying this is more than just a commercial contract.


It had nothing to do with Brexit, but when a Dutch production site entered the consortium led by the University of Oxford, this became part of the "UK production chain".

https://nos.nl/artikel/2368414-deel-in-nederland-geproduceerde-vaccins-naar-vk-door-britse-afspraken.html in Dutch.

You may say it's a commercial contract between a production site and the vaccin developer, but there was also money from the UK government involved.


There was also EU money involved.

art wrote:
Dano1977 wrote:
“Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.”

This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines....


Did those countries know about AZ's arrangement with the UK government when they signed up for AZ vaccine? If not, why were they not made aware of it?


Nope, the EU has in writing that no such obligation exists.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10641
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:32 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Nope, the EU has in writing that no such obligation exists.

Best regards
Thomas

I notice you keep harping on this point, so despite fraud claims you are 100% certain that whatever AZ put in writing to the EU is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10641
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:35 pm

marcelh wrote:
It had nothing to do with Brexit, but when a Dutch production site entered the consortium led by the University of Oxford, this became part of the "UK production chain".

https://nos.nl/artikel/2368414-deel-in-nederland-geproduceerde-vaccins-naar-vk-door-britse-afspraken.html in Dutch.

You may say it's a commercial contract between a production site and the vaccin developer, but there was also money from the UK government involved.

I understand that there are also factories in the UK that are obligated by contract to provide supplies to the EU, so as I said, it is free trade rearing its ugly head.
A number of governments have provided funding to all of the vaccine makers, its not just the EU and the UK, you can also add the USA and a host of other countries.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14430
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:52 pm

par13del wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Nope, the EU has in writing that no such obligation exists.

Best regards
Thomas

I notice you keep harping on this point, so despite fraud claims you are 100% certain that whatever AZ put in writing to the EU is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


Nope. From the EU perspective that is the only truth that matters, since they only knew that and made decisions based on it. And it not being true makes it fraud.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4050
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:17 pm

Did the EU assume that because they had signed the contract that the trucks that delivered the tools to maintain the factory have free rein to the wheel nuts without just in case that they required because of no competing obligations on the supply chain? Just curious.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14430
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:23 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Did the EU assume that because they had signed the contract that the trucks that delivered the tools to maintain the factory have free rein to the wheel nuts without just in case that they required because of no competing obligations on the supply chain? Just curious.


Obviously not, since all suppliers ran into problems, yet the criticism is exclusively on the one making false claims....

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
Dano1977
Posts: 745
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:53 pm

marcelh wrote:
Dano1977 wrote:
Seen on another forum...

From Politico EU.....

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-...eca-contracts/

How the UK gained an edge with AstraZeneca’s vaccine commitments

....AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot made the argument that the U.K. had better vaccine supply because the U.K. signed an agreement for vaccines months earlier than the EU. Formally, this isn’t true: The U.K. contract was signed on August 28, while the EU’s was signed a day earlier on August 27.

However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said.

One official close to the U.K. contract said the agreement began as an email in April from the U.K. government saying it would provide £65 million to help the University of Oxford execute its production plan. It later evolved into a fully-fledged contract between the government and the British-Swedish company, which also might explain why it took until August for the contract to be signed.

Most important, however, is that it meant that the British government was “effectively a major shareholder” in the jab’s development as early as April. After Oxford and AstraZeneca agreed to team up at the end of April, for example, the British government filled seats on Oxford-AstraZeneca joint liaison committees.

“Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.”

This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines....


And to make it more interesting, a part of those vaccins for the British market are produced in the EU:

https://nos.nl/artikel/2368414-deel-in-nederland-geproduceerde-vaccins-naar-vk-door-britse-afspraken.html in Dutch

Last april, the Dutch company Halix entered the consortium led bij the Univerity of Oxford and became part of the "British production chain".



And to upscale the production, most of the personnel and equipment came from the U.K.
The average EU official - he has the organising ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4050
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:25 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Did the EU assume that because they had signed the contract that the trucks that delivered the tools to maintain the factory have free rein to the wheel nuts without just in case that they required because of no competing obligations on the supply chain? Just curious.


Obviously not, since all suppliers ran into problems, yet the criticism is exclusively on the one making false claims....

Best regards
Thomas

Regardless, it is under obligations for things that are in the supply chain, wheel nuts on the trucks that deliver the spares for the factory are an integral part of the supply chain. If sea-containers had bought up the last of the wheel nuts to carry as spares in their trucks then it would have been competing and could hamper the delivery of European doses.

Under uk law AZ are required and are obligated to keep their staff safe, if they need to stop a factory or a process temporarily to prevent injury whilst a vaccine is being produced this then contravenes section 13.1(e).

Section 13.1(e) does not specify that the obligations are targeted at other COVID contracts so these are equally as valid.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14430
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:42 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Did the EU assume that because they had signed the contract that the trucks that delivered the tools to maintain the factory have free rein to the wheel nuts without just in case that they required because of no competing obligations on the supply chain? Just curious.


Obviously not, since all suppliers ran into problems, yet the criticism is exclusively on the one making false claims....

Best regards
Thomas

Regardless, it is under obligations for things that are in the supply chain, wheel nuts on the trucks that deliver the spares for the factory are an integral part of the supply chain. If sea-containers had bought up the last of the wheel nuts to carry as spares in their trucks then it would have been competing and could hamper the delivery of European doses.


None of which has anything to do with AZ making statements in a contract that they knew to be false.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4050
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:52 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Obviously not, since all suppliers ran into problems, yet the criticism is exclusively on the one making false claims....

Best regards
Thomas

Regardless, it is under obligations for things that are in the supply chain, wheel nuts on the trucks that deliver the spares for the factory are an integral part of the supply chain. If sea-containers had bought up the last of the wheel nuts to carry as spares in their trucks then it would have been competing and could hamper the delivery of European doses.


None of which has anything to do with AZ making statements in a contract that they knew to be false.

Best regards
Thomas

So the contract couldn’t have been signed regardless of the state of any other contracts or the ability to provide the vaccine because it is in direct violation of criminal laws.

So the EU commission signed a contract that put the supplier in conflict with the laws of a nation of a supplier. Suppliers to the EU commission ought to be wary of the positions they are put in by the EU.

Hopefully there can be an agreement between the UK and the European nations to help alleviate the vaccine shortage that would otherwise have to set border blocks on life saving drugs due to a blunder in contract negotiations by the EU.

I do wonder whether the EU will repay the UK investment.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
JJJ
Posts: 3966
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:04 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Did the EU assume that because they had signed the contract that the trucks that delivered the tools to maintain the factory have free rein to the wheel nuts without just in case that they required because of no competing obligations on the supply chain? Just curious.


Obviously not, since all suppliers ran into problems, yet the criticism is exclusively on the one making false claims....

Best regards
Thomas

Regardless, it is under obligations for things that are in the supply chain, wheel nuts on the trucks that deliver the spares for the factory are an integral part of the supply chain. If sea-containers had bought up the last of the wheel nuts to carry as spares in their trucks then it would have been competing and could hamper the delivery of European doses.


That kind of reductio ad absurdum doesn't help AZ case at all.

The simple truth is that they signed up (in full capacity, under their free will, etc. etc.) for two sets of overlapping responsibilities.

When reality hit them they choose to honour one part in full and apply the whole shortage to the other. That breaks their "best efforts" defence.

AZ at some point will have to face the fact that they couldn't at the same time establish a uniquely British production chain as Dano seems so fond of reminding us and sign British-produced jabs for the EU production chain.

No best efforts and there were definitely competing obligations. That's why the contract was made publicly available in the first place.
 
Dupli
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:29 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:17 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Europe is a great proof that huge government bureaucracy doesn't work, since the start of the pandemic they have managed this horribly, and till this day the vaccine rollout too.


Almost all western countries did horribly in this pandemic. Our governments clearly failed to protect us. We just locked down for most of the year, waiting for vaccines, and complaining about that lockdown. Contrast this to east Asia, where life is more or less normal (except international travel, which is very restricted there, contrary to the west, which closes schools and restaurants, but still allows travel, curiously).

But the EU did get vaccines. I doubt my own country (in EU) would have any if it had only is own politicians to depend on.


AirWorthy99 wrote:
Operation warp speed was a huge success (thanks to the Trump admin), and our local governments have managed to do this right. We will get out of this by summer, thankfully.

Really wish Europe gets its act together and solves their issues fast, I was looking forward to an Europe summer vacation this year, but I see it won't be till 2022, at least.


I hope so too. It should get better in q2, based on supply forecasts, EU should be able to catch up to UK by summer.

Although by summer the dominant variant could be vaccine resistant. The news is not good:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1371 ... 35553.html

Also points out why two doses are needed. Although from a public health point of view, I think the UK is doing the right thing prioritising first doses.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4050
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:25 pm

JJJ wrote:
When reality hit them they choose to honour one part in full and apply the whole shortage to the other. That breaks their "best efforts" defence.


Who's best efforts defence? As far as I'm aware the contract mentions nothing of best efforts, only "best reasonable efforts" which has as part of its definition a reciprocity of the actions of the contracting body to define effort required.
"...the activites and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the vaccine having regard to the urgent needfor a vaccine to end a global pandemic.."


Page3. section 1.9.

You let me know where "best efforts" come in to play.

Fred
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14430
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:37 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Regardless, it is under obligations for things that are in the supply chain, wheel nuts on the trucks that deliver the spares for the factory are an integral part of the supply chain. If sea-containers had bought up the last of the wheel nuts to carry as spares in their trucks then it would have been competing and could hamper the delivery of European doses.


None of which has anything to do with AZ making statements in a contract that they knew to be false.

Best regards
Thomas

So the contract couldn’t have been signed regardless of the state of any other contracts


THAT contract could not have been signed, correct..nothing kept AZ from stating the proper state of affairs, and have a contract drawn up to reflect that. Aside of the EU very probably giving them a smaller order and less money up front ...
AZ chose to sign... no one made them. No one forced them to lie.

I do wonder whether the EU will repay the UK investment


The UK is already getting vaccines from three manufacturing sites the EU paid AZ to get ready and buy supplies for. For zero deliveries so far.

Dupli wrote:
Contrast this to east Asia, where life is more or less normal.


They do have a much more socially responsible population. What they did in itself is not all that different.

JJJ wrote:
When reality hit them they choose to honour one part in full and apply the whole shortage to the other.


Well, that was a nice way to get political backing from one side, and one that won't let any ethics interfere.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
JJJ
Posts: 3966
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:04 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
JJJ wrote:
When reality hit them they choose to honour one part in full and apply the whole shortage to the other. That breaks their "best efforts" defence.


Who's best efforts defence? As far as I'm aware the contract mentions nothing of best efforts, only "best reasonable efforts" which has as part of its definition a reciprocity of the actions of the contracting body to define effort required.
"...the activites and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the vaccine having regard to the urgent needfor a vaccine to end a global pandemic.."



And which are EU obligations under the contract?

1.- Pay up (in advance).
2.- Approve the vaccine.

Both done and dusted.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4050
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:30 pm

JJJ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
JJJ wrote:
When reality hit them they choose to honour one part in full and apply the whole shortage to the other. That breaks their "best efforts" defence.


Who's best efforts defence? As far as I'm aware the contract mentions nothing of best efforts, only "best reasonable efforts" which has as part of its definition a reciprocity of the actions of the contracting body to define effort required.
"...the activites and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the vaccine having regard to the urgent needfor a vaccine to end a global pandemic.."



And which are EU obligations under the contract?

1.- Pay up (in advance).
2.- Approve the vaccine.

Both done and dusted.

It does not say that in the best reasonable efforts definition.

I’d suggest not spreading false rumour and disinformation as to the effectiveness of a vaccine as a way to help end a global pandemic.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
JJJ
Posts: 3966
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:36 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
JJJ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

Who's best efforts defence? As far as I'm aware the contract mentions nothing of best efforts, only "best reasonable efforts" which has as part of its definition a reciprocity of the actions of the contracting body to define effort required.



And which are EU obligations under the contract?

1.- Pay up (in advance).
2.- Approve the vaccine.

Both done and dusted.

It does not say that in the best reasonable efforts definition.

I’d suggest not spreading false rumour and disinformation as to the effectiveness of a vaccine as a way to help end a global pandemic.


Those are the actual obligations as set up in the contract, which after all is a run of the mill purchase agreement.

The EU has complied, what about AZ?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4050
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:12 pm

JJJ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
JJJ wrote:

And which are EU obligations under the contract?

1.- Pay up (in advance).
2.- Approve the vaccine.

Both done and dusted.

It does not say that in the best reasonable efforts definition.

I’d suggest not spreading false rumour and disinformation as to the effectiveness of a vaccine as a way to help end a global pandemic.


Those are the actual obligations as set up in the contract, which after all is a run of the mill purchase agreement.

The EU has complied, what about AZ?

Yep, they’ve done their best reasonable efforts based on how much effort the customer has done and including reference of how much effort a customer ‘can’ put in.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10641
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:30 pm

No worries this will all be resolved when the UK agrees to share their vaccine with the EU to avoid the EU banning the export of all vaccines to countries that are further ahead of the EU vaccination project. The world needs balance, it functions much better when we are all on the same level.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56486733
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 887
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:53 pm

JJJ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
JJJ wrote:

And which are EU obligations under the contract?

1.- Pay up (in advance).
2.- Approve the vaccine.

Both done and dusted.

It does not say that in the best reasonable efforts definition.

I’d suggest not spreading false rumour and disinformation as to the effectiveness of a vaccine as a way to help end a global pandemic.


Those are the actual obligations as set up in the contract, which after all is a run of the mill purchase agreement.

The EU has complied, what about AZ?


The EU hasn't complied.

Per the APA

“Best Reasonable Efforts” means
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company
of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as
AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a
Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard
to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in
serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic
impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the
activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in
supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the
urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious
public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across
the world.


Section 6 goes into further details - though notice the bone-idle EU dumps the responsibility on the member states (though you will have to go and read the APA - which may make you the first European to do so).

Every indication has been that the EU has taken a hands off approach to this. Whereas the UK (and Germany in the case of Pfizer/Biontech - though I can't find a link just now) have viewed it as a partnership, trying to source adjuvants, stabilizers, vials, fill and finish facilities, production facilities etc etc the EU has let AZ get on with it.

The person with knowledge of the U.K.’s contract with AstraZeneca said the U.K. was ultimately more successful in ramping up manufacturing because the British government was more actively involved in the details of the manufacturing process. The European Commission, by comparison, was a “passive customer.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/after-f ... ply-chain/

It seems far clearer to me that the EU is in violation of the contract than AZ.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
JJJ
Posts: 3966
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:19 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
JJJ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
It does not say that in the best reasonable efforts definition.

I’d suggest not spreading false rumour and disinformation as to the effectiveness of a vaccine as a way to help end a global pandemic.


Those are the actual obligations as set up in the contract, which after all is a run of the mill purchase agreement.

The EU has complied, what about AZ?

Yep, they’ve done their best reasonable efforts based on how much effort the customer has done and including reference of how much effort a customer ‘can’ put in.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



You seem to mistake two things.

The obligations in the purchase agreement are, on the part of the buyer, to pay up. The seller needs to deliver.

In this case the buyer has fully complied, and the seller has not delivered the required amount of product in the relevant timeframe.

Now, you seem to think that AZ has made best reasonable efforts to deliver in light of insurmountable technical difficulties, but AZ has been churning a not insignificant number of doses from UK plants, which according to the contract with the EU are eligible capacity from where to draw in order to serve the EU purchases.

Furthermore, AZ explicitly says in the contract there were no other conflicting contractual obligations that prevent them from fulfilling EU orders.

So the simple fact that a single dose from UK plants (included in the contract with the EU) went to a non-EU customer means that either AZ did not made their best reasonable efforts or that AZ indeed had conflicting obligations.

Pick which one you want to breach, you can't have it both ways.

As far as the purchase agreement goes, the use or circumstances of use are irrelevant, if AZ is not supplying they are in breach of the contract and their mitigating factors contradict each other
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4050
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:26 pm

JJJ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
JJJ wrote:

Those are the actual obligations as set up in the contract, which after all is a run of the mill purchase agreement.

The EU has complied, what about AZ?

Yep, they’ve done their best reasonable efforts based on how much effort the customer has done and including reference of how much effort a customer ‘can’ put in.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



You seem to mistake two things.

The obligations in the purchase agreement are, on the part of the buyer, to pay up. The seller needs to deliver.

In this case the buyer has fully complied, and the seller has not delivered the required amount of product in the relevant timeframe.

Now, you seem to think that AZ has made best reasonable efforts to deliver in light of insurmountable technical difficulties, but AZ has been churning a not insignificant number of doses from UK plants, which according to the contract with the EU are eligible capacity from where to draw in order to serve the EU purchases.

Furthermore, AZ explicitly says in the contract there were no other conflicting contractual obligations that prevent them from fulfilling EU orders.

So the simple fact that a single dose from UK plants (included in the contract with the EU) went to a non-EU customer means that either AZ did not made their best reasonable efforts or that AZ indeed had conflicting obligations.

Pick which one you want to breach, you can't have it both ways.

As far as the purchase agreement goes, the use or circumstances of use are irrelevant, if AZ is not supplying they are in breach of the contract and their mitigating factors contradict each other

Nah, they have to deliver their best reasonable efforts, mirroring the effort as demonstrated by the customer.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
JJJ
Posts: 3966
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:28 pm

BaconButty wrote:
JJJ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
It does not say that in the best reasonable efforts definition.

I’d suggest not spreading false rumour and disinformation as to the effectiveness of a vaccine as a way to help end a global pandemic.


Those are the actual obligations as set up in the contract, which after all is a run of the mill purchase agreement.

The EU has complied, what about AZ?


The EU hasn't complied.

Per the APA

“Best Reasonable Efforts” means
(a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company
of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as
AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a
Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard
to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in
serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic
impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and
(b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the
activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in
supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the
urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious
public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across
the world.

.


The obligations of the purchaser are to pay up, while the seller has to deliver the goods.

The rest, as they say, is literature.

If someone does not comply, all that literature will seek the how's and when's and, especially, the how much. The EU paid in due time, and cleared whatever legal hurdles were in place so that it could be used.

After that, as far as the contract is concerned each country is free to apply it, donate it to a third country or make mojitos with it.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3966
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:36 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
JJJ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Yep, they’ve done their best reasonable efforts based on how much effort the customer has done and including reference of how much effort a customer ‘can’ put in.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



You seem to mistake two things.

The obligations in the purchase agreement are, on the part of the buyer, to pay up. The seller needs to deliver.

In this case the buyer has fully complied, and the seller has not delivered the required amount of product in the relevant timeframe.

Now, you seem to think that AZ has made best reasonable efforts to deliver in light of insurmountable technical difficulties, but AZ has been churning a not insignificant number of doses from UK plants, which according to the contract with the EU are eligible capacity from where to draw in order to serve the EU purchases.

Furthermore, AZ explicitly says in the contract there were no other conflicting contractual obligations that prevent them from fulfilling EU orders.

So the simple fact that a single dose from UK plants (included in the contract with the EU) went to a non-EU customer means that either AZ did not made their best reasonable efforts or that AZ indeed had conflicting obligations.

Pick which one you want to breach, you can't have it both ways.

As far as the purchase agreement goes, the use or circumstances of use are irrelevant, if AZ is not supplying they are in breach of the contract and their mitigating factors contradict each other

Nah, they have to deliver their best reasonable efforts, mirroring the effort as demonstrated by the customer.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Merely repeating it won't make it true.

It seems you're not up to speed with contract law (esp. on a Continental setting) otherwise you wouldn't be conflating two very different types of clauses there.

The case for the EU is rock solid which explains why a) it was the commission that made the content public and b) why AZ is all deflection on the issue.
 
Derico
Posts: 4467
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:02 pm

marcelh wrote:
Derico wrote:
I wanted to wait a few long weeks for this whole story to develop before making a comment, but it is now clear, not just base on the AZ blood clot mishandling (no matter whether there was any concern or not, the way it was handled in the public forum was horrendous), but in item after item (vaccine procurement and number of shots, vaccine contracts and their legal details, distribution, political gaffe after gaffe in multiple countries about vaccines), and culminating with export bans that have opened a massive Pandora's box for world trade in the future... it is clear that Brussels and individual EU governments so far in 2021 have managed to pull off an appalling vaccination effort and atrocious side effects for public sentiment and in rules of engagement for international trade and contracts. Just as Trump's USA was mocked, just as Johnson's Britain was mocked at one point, just as other parts of the world have been called out, no exception here. The EU has failed miserably, for such a wealthy continent to be behind a half to a full dozen or more developing nations in this effort is pretty damning.


You may have missed the fact that AZ promised to deliver 90 million doses in Q1, but with 9 days left they have only delivered 16.6 million and have stated they can only deliver 30 million doses... Those 60 million doses short is the entire population of the UK of 18 years and older.... And yes, the EU is to blame, but you just seem to ignore the fact that the UK has "annexed" the Dutch production site of AZ to claim it as part of the "UK production chain".


Certainly, it is "every man for himself" in the COVID era. This new era of Male chauvinism, which is a response to a changing world where women are gaining more education status, are showing more talent, and are earning more money than many men, all over the world, has lead to this toxic reaction where male fears in country after country have been channeled to the current neo-nationalism, combining it with older fears of globalization, and even older notions of race and ethnocentrism as countries all over the world (not just Western ones), are facing major demographic and ethnic changes. This brew has led to a near-complete collapse of world cooperation.

The UK (government) has been thoroughly and deservedly criticized for their utterly anachronistic and pitiful strategy of somehow trying to elevate the UK above the EU, and toe to toe with China, Russia, and somehow as equal to them or the USA. Their nuclear warhead decision is the ultimate proof of their delusions of former (and not particularly honorable) grandeur.

All of that said, the EU should have handled properly and professionally the areas of this challenge of which they had full control over, because even a lowly guy like me could predict that vaccinations of a new disease would be fraught with logistical challenges, some disruptions, a few setbacks, and all of those leading to a few contretemps and a diplomatic incident or two. But despite all of those naturally occurring, the EU created most of their own problems with an extremely poorly run campaign, in logistics, in public education, and in political savvy. It was amateur hour.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14076
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:01 am

BaconButty : you make an interesting point, but I don't think what you're talking about is part of the contract. I also don't think it's standard or expected for a customer to do the work of the provider. In hindsight, clearly AZ needed it, in fact from my understanding they have little experience in vaccines, and it shows.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10641
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Mar 23, 2021 3:22 am

Interesting article from the USA, the option of them not using the AZ vaccine may save the company some face, the easier logistics is no longer much of an incentive to selection, the bad PR they have received will see more hesitancy and nations willing to continue lock down and border closures until other options are available.
A lot of talk about one shot J&J even though their efficacy is not as high, unfortunately, their ramp up is still months away to allow exports out of the USA.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/lifestyle/cor ... li=BBJDXDP
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14430
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:58 am

JJJ wrote:
The case for the EU is rock solid which explains why a) it was the commission that made the content public and b) why AZ is all deflection on the issue.


one should also keep in mind that everything that is still blacked out in the contract is so on AZs insistence, the EU was willing to make it public in full.

BaconButty wrote:
trying to source adjuvants, stabilizers, vials, fill and finish facilities, production facilities etc etc the EU has let AZ get on with it. .


You are trying to say it was the EUs responsibility to source stuff AZ has explicitly billed and was paid for?

Now i am just waiting for the "Its the EUs fault they didn´t make and distribute the vaccine themselves and just paid AZ".

The fact remains: AZ was in breech of the contract before the ink was dry, which makes it glaringly obvious that AZ never intended to comply with any of it. Productions sites under no competing obligation have no other customers but the EU, and hence 100% of their output should go to the EU, unless they make more than contracted. If vials and stabilizers are in shortage, then the output is lower ..... but their problem, according to AZ themselves, is not lack of raw materials, but yield in one of the sites supposedly making vaccine for the EU. AZ simply decided to use the output of the "good site" for the UK, and the bad sites for the EU, claiming the former is UK exclusive, despite signing a contract saying that wasn´t the case.

But i guess you and all the other defenders of AZ would be perfectly happy to buy a vacation home, just to find out is actually a time share and fully booked during your vacation time by others.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
max999
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:45 am

Switching over to a related topic: the so called green pass proposed by the EU. This CNN article says vaccine passports may save Europe's summer, but only for the lucky ones. This makes me angry. Young people have already been asked to sacrifice their mental health for old people. I wish the lockdowns were targeted only at the vulnerable populations. Instead, governments took the risk of the corona virus and spread the risk across all of society by locking down everyone, even people who are low risk. Now the vaccine passport will make young people second class citizens.

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ ... index.html

Likewise, with certain demographics targeted for early vaccination over others, some may be forced to remain at home, watching with jealousy as older citizens, many of whom will have received both jabs before the end of spring, jet off for their time in the sun.

And while the EU's executive body, the European Commission, envisages its new Green Certificate simply as a document for allowing its citizens smooth transit across European frontiers, concerns have been raised that they will also become required for entry into restaurants, bars or other venues and events.

Those EU citizens yet to qualify for vaccination -- or unable to qualify -- could be sidelined from the return to the normality most of us are eager to embrace unless they submit to frequent testing regimens.

"Only the over 50s will be vaccinated by this summer, so there may well be protests from younger people," Kaye McIntosh, former editor of consumer magazine Health Which? and WI Life, tells CNN Travel. "It adds to the sense of generational unfairness created by austerity, house prices and student loans. I wouldn't blame Gen Z for being angry."
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14430
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:03 am

max999 wrote:
Switching over to a related topic: the so called green pass proposed by the EU. This CNN article says vaccine passports may save Europe's summer, but only for the lucky ones. This makes me angry. Young people have already been asked to sacrifice their mental health for old people. I wish the lockdowns were targeted only at the vulnerable populations. Instead, governments took the risk of the corona virus and spread the risk across all of society by locking down everyone, even people who are low risk. Now the vaccine passport will make young people second class citizens.


My gut feeling tells me this is not going to survive its date in court. Since the government decides who is and isn´t getting vaccinated, lifting restrictions on the lucky ones would be discrimination based on age, profession and health by the government, which is quite explicitly forbidden.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10176
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:27 am

Yes, this will only stand if you can actually decide to get a vaccine shot or not. As long as the government decides if you can get a shot, this won´t fly.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3966
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:30 am

par13del wrote:
A lot of talk about one shot J&J even though their efficacy is not as high, unfortunately, their ramp up is still months away to allow exports out of the USA.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/lifestyle/cor ... li=BBJDXDP


J&J - Janssen vaccines for EU market are currently being produced in Leiden, Netherlands, (the former Crucell Pharma which was acquired by J&J) as well as in MSD sites.

It was first envisaged that the doses would be manufactured in Europe, then sent to US for filling and bottling, but concerns about US export restrictions have made the company complete the process domestically.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-03- ... ivery.html

Deliveries start next month, still there's a lot of noise about Janssen not meeting their 55 million doses lower estimate of deliveries for the 1st batch.
 
art
Posts: 3980
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:37 am

tommy1808 wrote:
max999 wrote:
Switching over to a related topic: the so called green pass proposed by the EU. This CNN article says vaccine passports may save Europe's summer, but only for the lucky ones. This makes me angry. Young people have already been asked to sacrifice their mental health for old people. I wish the lockdowns were targeted only at the vulnerable populations. Instead, governments took the risk of the corona virus and spread the risk across all of society by locking down everyone, even people who are low risk. Now the vaccine passport will make young people second class citizens.


My gut feeling tells me this is not going to survive its date in court. Since the government decides who is and isn´t getting vaccinated, lifting restrictions on the lucky ones would be discrimination based on age, profession and health by the government, which is quite explicitly forbidden.

best regards
Thomas


Discrimination based on age and health is the order of the day! People are not being chosen for vaccination at random..

Depressing economic activity by only providing access to sectors of the economy when all consumers can benefit does not sound like a very clever idea to me (holidays for none until all can go on holiday).
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14430
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: European Commission Vaccination Strategy News and Discussion Thread

Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:34 am

art wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
max999 wrote:
Switching over to a related topic: the so called green pass proposed by the EU. This CNN article says vaccine passports may save Europe's summer, but only for the lucky ones. This makes me angry. Young people have already been asked to sacrifice their mental health for old people. I wish the lockdowns were targeted only at the vulnerable populations. Instead, governments took the risk of the corona virus and spread the risk across all of society by locking down everyone, even people who are low risk. Now the vaccine passport will make young people second class citizens.


My gut feeling tells me this is not going to survive its date in court. Since the government decides who is and isn´t getting vaccinated, lifting restrictions on the lucky ones would be discrimination based on age, profession and health by the government, which is quite explicitly forbidden.

best regards
Thomas


Depressing economic activity by only providing access to sectors of the economy when all consumers can benefit does not sound like a very clever idea to me (holidays for none until all can go on holiday).


constitutions and rights don´t have to make economic sense, and lock downs are not a limited recourse like vaccines.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: B717fan, luisjumper, NIKV69, par13del, stl07 and 55 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos