Meanwhile, the European commission has threatened to block exports of coronavirus vaccines to countries outside the bloc such as Britain, after AstraZeneca was accused of failing to give a satisfactory explanation for a huge shortfall of promised doses to EU member states.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -shortfall

The EU’s health commissioner, Stella Kyriakides said Brussels would as from now insist on being notified of any exports of vaccines from EU sites, including that produced by Pfizer on which the UK is reliant for its supplies, raising the spectre of an export ban in future.
The European Union has spent €2.7bn on the rapid development and production of coronavirus vaccines by pre-financing their development and production, and it wants to see the return. Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, gave Berlin’s backing to the commission's proposal for an export notification.

I don't have an article in English but the CEO of the French branch of AstraZeneca was moaning at Davos that international cooperation about vaccines failed, I wonder if he was talking about his own company hoarding vaccines in the UK ?

Aesma wrote:

I don't have an article in English but the CEO of the French branch of AstraZeneca was moaning at Davos that international cooperation about vaccines failed, I wonder if he was talking about his own company hoarding vaccines in the UK ?

He got a nice call during the weekend with questions about where is the vaccines EU has paid for.

olle wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I don't have an article in English but the CEO of the French branch of AstraZeneca was moaning at Davos that international cooperation about vaccines failed, I wonder if he was talking about his own company hoarding vaccines in the UK ?

He got a nice call during the weekend with questions about where is the vaccines EU has paid for.

With a veiled threat thrown in for good measure.

COVID-19 vaccine: EU threatens to block exports over AstraZeneca delivery delays
https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/25/cov ... ery-delays

JJJ wrote:

olle wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I don't have an article in English but the CEO of the French branch of AstraZeneca was moaning at Davos that international cooperation about vaccines failed, I wonder if he was talking about his own company hoarding vaccines in the UK ?

He got a nice call during the weekend with questions about where is the vaccines EU has paid for.

With a veiled threat thrown in for good measure.

COVID-19 vaccine: EU threatens to block exports over AstraZeneca delivery delays
https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/25/cov ... ery-delays

.... just make it automatic, whenever suppliers fall behind schedule.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

olle wrote:

He got a nice call during the weekend with questions about where is the vaccines EU has paid for.

With a veiled threat thrown in for good measure.

COVID-19 vaccine: EU threatens to block exports over AstraZeneca delivery delays
https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/25/cov ... ery-delays

.... just make it automatic, whenever suppliers fall behind schedule.

best regards
Thomas

Pressure is growing indeed to have the vaccines produced in the EU, be guaranteed to first cover the contractually guaranteed doses for the EU and only then let Pfizzer and AZ export whatever remains to third countries, because it's clear both have massively oversold their production lines and are now looking for excuses to cut back on their initial deliveries...
Sadly for them, both did the same thing, so it's a little bit all too obvious for it to be a coincidence and to just blame it on production issues and miscommunication as they first tried to do.

That looks like bad news for the UK which is now a 3rd country and could thus face a delivery halting in a couple of weeks, although the UK goverment says it is confident it will get the ordered doses, even if it is not specifying what this belief is based on: it the EU blocks the export, it's just going to have to accept the consequences of its third country status like everybody else really.

Brexit was known to have consequences and it might have very unexpected consequences even for the UK now too.

sabenapilot wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

With a veiled threat thrown in for good measure.

COVID-19 vaccine: EU threatens to block exports over AstraZeneca delivery delays
https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/25/cov ... ery-delays

.... just make it automatic, whenever suppliers fall behind schedule.

best regards
Thomas

Pressure is growing indeed to have the vaccines produced in the EU, be guaranteed to first cover the contractually guaranteed doses for the EU and only then let Pfizzer and AZ export whatever remains to third countries, because it's clear both have massively oversold their production lines and are now looking for excuses to cut back on their initial deliveries...
Sadly for them, both did the same thing, so it's a little bit all too obvious for it to be a coincidence and to just blame it on production issues and miscommunication as they first tried to do.

That looks like bad news for the UK which is now a 3rd country and could thus face a delivery halting in a couple of weeks, although the UK goverment says it is confident it will get the ordered doses, even if it is not specifying what this belief is based on: it the EU blocks the export, it's just going to have to accept the consequences of its third country status like everybody else really.

Brexit was known to have consequences and it might have very unexpected consequences even for the UK now too.

Not sure the EU can get involved in private contracts?

gkirk wrote:

Not sure the EU can get involved in private contracts?

They don't have to.
The line of thought in Brussels is basically this:
The EU is having indications that both pharmaceuticals (Pfizer and AZ) are unable to produce the globally contracted volumes of their vaccines and that as such they are having to decide who gets exactly what share of their production, first.
And that they are currently doing so in a way that maximizes their profits by delivering more than what is fair to those who happen to pay most for the vaccines.
The EU is known to have negotiated very low prices (which accidentally leaked) compared to others like the UK, because the EU has invested billions of euro in R&D facilities as well as doing upfront payments allowing pharmaceutical companies to already scale up production even before the success ratio of their vaccine was proven and official certification was obtained.
As such, it sees the lower price negotiated as a normal outcome and a reward for their risk sharing, and not a something that should be used against them now that there are not enough vaccines to cover all orders.

By imposing the legal requirement to pre-notice the EU of any planned export of vaccines, the EC will as from now be able to check irrifutably for itself whether it indeed gets its share of the total production by both companies or whether -as is widely suspected- it is being made to wait for part of its contracted deliveries because both pharmaceutical companies try to deliver more doses to third parties which were sold at higher profit margins.

If the EU discovers indeed that either one (possibly both?) of these companies exporting a disproportional number of vaccines beyond the EU, it will simply impose an export ban on those vaccines, thus making them immediately worthless to any other party but the EU itself, which happens to have a purchase contract in place for those vaccine doses too, so they automatically fall to the EU then, by contract. No need to get involved in private contracts of others at all really.
As the German minister of Health said: it's not about "Europe first", its about checking -and if needed making sure- that Europe gets its rightfull share and is rewarded for the billions it has invested in these vaccines upfront.

Let's hope that the notion they are being scrutinized is going to make these pharmaceuticals think twice if indeed they were trying to redistribute EU earmarked doses to the highest bidder on the international scene, because otherwise the EU is clearly going to escalate this matter further even if an outright export ban has the potential to become a nasty diplomatic issue: vaccine nationalism is not what the EU is after, but if needed it will not refrain from taking care of its own interests first, according to the EU commissioner responsible for this, even if it is to the detriment of third countries like -amongst others- the UK which rely on import of vaccines from the EU.

If there were technical or manufacturing problems it would be expected for AstraZeneca to have shared them with customers. We are not reading about any such thing. In which case political problems arise as a possibility.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

If there were technical or manufacturing problems it would be expected for AstraZeneca to have shared them with customers. We are not reading about any such thing. In which case political problems arise as a possibility.

There's no clear explanation given by either of them and the reasons given seem to have changed several times too meanwhile, leading to widespread political speculation that both companies have:
1 - oversold their initial production lines and are now looking at technical excuses to hide this fact from view and to cut back on their contractual obligations.
2- are creating a lot of mist as to their overal production capacity to hide from view that they'd prefer shifting the limited number of vaccines available to those paying most for it, even if the EU has cofunded the R&D as well as the production ramp up.

The measures of the EU are going to quickly show whether point 2 was indeed planned to happen (and they will immediately halt it), after which point 1 will come into focus and there the temptation will be quite high to solve the issue through an export ban, especially if point 2 was found to be true indeed!

sabenapilot wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

If there were technical or manufacturing problems it would be expected for AstraZeneca to have shared them with customers. We are not reading about any such thing. In which case political problems arise as a possibility.

There's no clear explanation given by either of them and the reasons given seem to have changed several times too meanwhile, leading to widespread political speculation that both companies have:
1 - oversold their initial production lines and are now looking at technical excuses to hide this fact from view and to cut back on their contractual obligations.
2- are creating a lot of mist as to their overal production capacity to hide from view that they'd prefer shifting the limited number of vaccines available to those paying most for it, even if the EU has cofunded the R&D as well as the production ramp up.

The measures of the EU are going to quickly show whether point 2 was indeed planned to happen (and they will immediately halt it), after which point 1 will come into focus and there the temptation will be quite high to solve the issue through an export ban, especially if point 2 was found to be true indeed!

Correct me if I am wrong but he EU hasn't even approved AstraZeneca's vaccine yet?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

If there were technical or manufacturing problems it would be expected for AstraZeneca to have shared them with customers. We are not reading about any such thing. In which case political problems arise as a possibility.

There's no clear explanation given by either of them and the reasons given seem to have changed several times too meanwhile, leading to widespread political speculation that both companies have:
1 - oversold their initial production lines and are now looking at technical excuses to hide this fact from view and to cut back on their contractual obligations.
2- are creating a lot of mist as to their overal production capacity to hide from view that they'd prefer shifting the limited number of vaccines available to those paying most for it, even if the EU has cofunded the R&D as well as the production ramp up.

The measures of the EU are going to quickly show whether point 2 was indeed planned to happen (and they will immediately halt it), after which point 1 will come into focus and there the temptation will be quite high to solve the issue through an export ban, especially if point 2 was found to be true indeed!

Correct me if I am wrong but he EU hasn't even approved AstraZeneca's vaccine yet?

Tugg

Not yet indeed.
But AZ has already notified the EU of its intend to deliver only 60% of the contracted amount to the EU in Q1, hence this pro-active action by the EU.
If AZ knows it will be unable to deliver what it has guaranteed to the EU, it seems the EU is not just going to naively let them export all of their vaccines produced now, only to face a shortfall later themselves: AZ will just have to start building up a stock to cover their EU deliveries which contractually should start the moment they get approval by the EMA.

It seems most of the Astra Zeneca vaccine is produced in the UK, with smaller factories in India (including one which recently had a large fire). Only thing that will affect the UK is the Pfizer vaccine which comes from Belgium

gkirk wrote:

It seems most of the Astra Zeneca vaccine is produced in the UK, with smaller factories in India (including one which recently had a large fire). Only thing that will affect the UK is the Pfizer vaccine which comes from Belgium

Indeed, while the main spat is with AZ, the irony is that the new EU measure to notify of any vaccines exported will apply to all manufacturers in the EU, not just the AZ plant in the Netherlands, but also Pfizer in Belgium.
It would also be valid for vaccine components and that's where Brexit comes into play again: the AZ vaccine uses a vector sourced from another plant in Belgium...
Meanwhile French pharmaceutical company Sanofi has agreed to start producing 100 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine in its Frankfurt plant, exclusively for the EU market.

sabenapilot wrote:

gkirk wrote:

It seems most of the Astra Zeneca vaccine is produced in the UK, with smaller factories in India (including one which recently had a large fire). Only thing that will affect the UK is the Pfizer vaccine which comes from Belgium

Indeed, while the main spat is with AZ, the irony is that the new EU measure to notify of any vaccines exported will apply to all manufacturers in the EU, not just the AZ plant in the Netherlands, but also Pfizer in Belgium.
It would also be valid for vaccine components and that's where Brexit comes into play again: the AZ vaccine uses a vector sourced from another plant in Belgium...
Meanwhile French pharmaceutical company Sanofi has agreed to start producing 100 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine in its Frankfurt plant, exclusively for the EU market.

Not sure why discussion on vaccines has ended up in the Brexit thread but here's an interview with Pascal Soirot (AZ CEO) in la Repubblica which dispels a few myths circulating on some of the threads here:

https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/ ... 284349628/

Key points:
- The UK signed a contract with AZ 3 months before the EU. This allowed the production process at the UK plant to start earlier and ramping-up glitches to be resolved sooner.
- There have been production issues of varying degree at all the plants around the world.
- The contract with the EU does not have hard delivery dates: it is "best efforts".
- The AZ vaccine is being supplied on a non-profit basis throughout the whole world. It is an explicit condition in the contract with Oxford University. It is not the case that production is being diverted to countries paying higher prices.

There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?

Itis just a CEO in a PR exercise, time will tell exactly what was contractually agreed.

Aesma wrote:

There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?

Whoever orders first gets priority, surely?

Aesma wrote:

There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?

I don't see any contradicton. Read the interview. "Best efforts" means AZ will do all it can to supply the vaccines the EU has ordered. Its the contract that the EU has agreed to and signed. I don't see what bearing that has on the UK or any other countries.

CranfordBoy wrote:

Not sure why discussion on vaccines has ended up in the Brexit thread but here's an interview with Pascal Soirot (AZ CEO) in la Repubblica which dispels a few myths circulating on some of the threads here:

It has ended up in this topic because the EU is warming up to the idea of putting an export ban on all EU produced vaccines, including the Pfizer vaccine the UK is heavily relying on, in retaliation of a spat it has with A-Z which does not not seem eager to honour its contractual commitment to deliver the EU with the contracted doses right away (from a stock it was supposed to have built since production started, yet clearly didn't), despite being pre-funded to do this.
The fact the UK would thus be cut off from the Pfizer vaccine would be a direct consequence of Brexit and as such it was discussed here.
But I agree the discussion about the vaccine and the dispute between A-Z and the EU does belong in the topic about the Covid-19 vaccines.

CranfordBoy wrote:

Aesma wrote:

There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?

I don't see any contradicton. Read the interview. "Best efforts" means AZ will do all it can to supply the vaccines the EU has ordered. Its the contract that the EU has agreed to and signed. I don't see what bearing that has on the UK or any other countries.

We'll see, the interview is one side of the story, the EU has probably another. We both don't know what is in the contract and what wording was chosen. We'll see how it plays out. But believing the manufacturer regardless doesn't seem to do the situation justice.

Aesma wrote:

There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?

No contradiction.

UK signed a contract with fixed numbers and delivery schedule. EU apparently signed a contract stipulating “best efforts” on delivery. If true, sounds a bit sloppy on the EU side.

scbriml wrote:

Aesma wrote:

There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?

No contradiction.

UK signed a contract with fixed numbers and delivery schedule. EU apparently signed a contract stipulating “best efforts” on delivery. If true, sounds a bit sloppy on the EU side.

Details are leaking as to what the issue is about:
A-Z was under the impression that for as long as their vaccine wasn't approved for use by the EU, it did not have to allocate part of their production to the EU either.
The EU however wanted A-Z to either build up a reserve of their already produced vaccines pending formal approval by them, OR alternatively A-Z should now temporarily allocate a larger percentage of their current production run to the EU as their "best effort" to allocate to the EU "its fair share of the overall production", exactly as was agreed.
A-Z seem to have interpretated 'production' as from the moment of approval by the EMA, but such is not in the text, which explains why they've been scrambing with numerous different explanations, have turned to an aggressive attack in the press first, followed by humble recalls of those statements, cancelling a video meeting with the EC scheduled for this moring and now having one a couple of hours later, after all....
.

sabenapilot wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Aesma wrote:

There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?

No contradiction.

UK signed a contract with fixed numbers and delivery schedule. EU apparently signed a contract stipulating “best efforts” on delivery. If true, sounds a bit sloppy on the EU side.

Details are leaking as to what the issue is about:
A-Z was under the impression that for as long as their vaccine wasn't approved for use by the EU, it did not have to allocate part of their production to the EU either.
The EU however wanted A-Z to either build up a reserve of their already produced vaccines pending formal approval by them, OR alternatively A-Z should now temporarily allocate a larger percentage of their current production run to the EU as their "best effort" to allocate to the EU "its fair share of the overall production", exactly as was agreed.
A-Z seem to have interpretated 'production' as from the moment of approval by the EMA, but such is not in the text, which explains why they've been scrambing with numerous different explanations, have turned to an aggressive attack in the press first, followed by humble recalls of those statements, cancelling a video meeting with the EC scheduled for this moring and now having one a couple of hours later, after all....
.

An issue for the lawyers: how to interpret the contract.

sabenapilot wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Aesma wrote:

There is a contradiction in your points. Or does "best efforts" means UK first, EU last ?

No contradiction.

UK signed a contract with fixed numbers and delivery schedule. EU apparently signed a contract stipulating “best efforts” on delivery. If true, sounds a bit sloppy on the EU side.

Details are leaking as to what the issue is about:
A-Z was under the impression that for as long as their vaccine wasn't approved for use by the EU, it did not have to allocate part of their production to the EU either.
The EU however wanted A-Z to either build up a reserve of their already produced vaccines pending formal approval by them, OR alternatively A-Z should now temporarily allocate a larger percentage of their current production run to the EU as their "best effort" to allocate to the EU "its fair share of the overall production", exactly as was agreed.
A-Z seem to have interpretated 'production' as from the moment of approval by the EMA, but such is not in the text, which explains why they've been scrambing with numerous different explanations, have turned to an aggressive attack in the press first, followed by humble recalls of those statements, cancelling a video meeting with the EC scheduled for this moring and now having one a couple of hours later, after all....
.

Contracts mean something. Just like the written word of Brexit agreements mean something. Either it is in the contract or it is not, "spirit" as we all know is not binding (though courts can after the fact attach that making it written) and the EU and their partner need to keep to the word of the contract and agreement.

If there is no approval and delivery cannot be made and it is not in the contract how the EU will pay for the storage and build up of inventory, and if non-approved how it will address the loss of expected revenue, then the company is well within its right to manage it's finances and resources to the best of its ability. Annoying a large potential customer is of course also and issue but to think that a company acting in its own best interest is somehow wrong or nefarious double dealing, then one would have to also agree that the EU acting in its own self interest is the same. But neither are wrong or nefarious to want the best outcome for themselves.

Put it in writing. Address compensation and loss of revenue over approval delays etc. And don't think you can just take from other nations contracted supplies (written and approved supplies). Just fix the problem. Clarity is in the contract, is in the written word.

Brexit has it, and so should this. I know so here will think I am "anti-EU" or some such but I am not. This is the Brexit thread, which in the end is all about the contractual realities that the UK and the EU had to agree on and will face going forward. And as we all here know the written word is what carries the day long into the future.

Tugg

The EU is in a major crisis with its vaccines. It’s majorly messed up. Madrid are out of vaccines. Frustrations are rising.

Why the EU was expecting vaccine it hasn’t even approved is anyones guess.

If the EU is claiming that vaccine produced in UK factories should first be used to make up shortfalls in the EU and the UK contract should be ignored because they are no longer in the EU, does that qualify as Brexit related? Section playing down the fact that the UK ordered months ahead of the EU.
Article on the BBC....interesting read, in line with the mindset that all and sundry should be looking out for number 1
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55822602

par13del wrote:

If the EU is claiming that vaccine produced in UK factories should first be used to make up shortfalls in the EU and the UK contract should be ignored because they are no longer in the EU, does that qualify as Brexit related?

In essence this is a conflict between a privately owned company and the EU: the Brexit element to it comes from the fact that as a measure of correction for A-Zs contractual shortcoming, the EU may forbid A-Z to export vaccines from its 2 EU production sites to outside of the EU (as well as Pfizer BTW, while at it).
As a non-EU member, the UK could thus be affected quite negatively by this conflict because of its status of a third country, which would thus be yet another negative consequence of Brexit, this time one that was not foreseeable.

One interesting complication about the 3-months earlier argument by AstraZeneca is this. Before the EU bought vaccines centrally, some member states were already buying. Specifically, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands (note which countries are the angriest) already signed a contract with AZ on the 13th of June (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN23K0HW ) for 400 million doses. The UK signed its deal on the 25 of May (So it's 3 weeks later). The deal was later rolled over the central EU vaccination project.

I find the 3 months argument a bit of a stretch, it's not that no interest was shown before. Anyway, AZ probably has this covered within the contract. If the EU wants to claim vaccines outside its borders the respective country will probably just issue the same export license laws it threatens AZ now with (I am looking at you Britain and India).

I would suggest reading the following article , which i am not saying is right or wrong but it is interesting. It would seem that there is quite a bit of disagreement within the EU about how to distribute these various vaccines with some countries not wanting the more complicated and expensive vaccines It shows up the problems of a central body trying decide things for 27 individual countries, so when it does not quite work out let us try to divert the blame somewhere else ie the old whipping horse the UK. I hope it will get sorted out in the end to most people satisfaction

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... countries/

proest wrote:

Anyway, AZ probably has this covered within the contract.

"Best effort" is what the contacts say, figures 10 years in court to come to a conclusion, so all that would do is deciding how much money AZ gets in a decade.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

proest wrote:

Anyway, AZ probably has this covered within the contract.

"Best effort" is what the contacts say, figures 10 years in court to come to a conclusion, so all that would do is deciding how much money AZ gets in a decade.

Best regards
Thomas

Good luck for A-Z to get any medicine approved fast in the future. Thi will have long term effect.

Arion640 wrote:

The EU is in a major crisis with its vaccines. It’s majorly messed up. Madrid are out of vaccines. Frustrations are rising.

Why the EU was expecting vaccine it hasn’t even approved is anyones guess.

This is the best example for the benefits of Brexit. The UK can now care for its people first.

olle wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

proest wrote:

Anyway, AZ probably has this covered within the contract.

"Best effort" is what the contacts say, figures 10 years in court to come to a conclusion, so all that would do is deciding how much money AZ gets in a decade.

Best regards
Thomas

Good luck for A-Z to get any medicine approved fast in the future. Thi will have long term effect.

since AZ is making exactly nothing without shipments out of Belgium the EU should just go "Either we get what we think the contract says we should or no one is getting anything".

best regards
Thomas

I think the connection with Brexit is how fast UK become a 3rd party considering EU. I am pretty sure that a EU member UK this would have been solved with a few phone calls.

Now noone seems to communicate and the relations UK EU is burned.

A-Z is now official a UK Swedish company, but living in Stockholm area Södertälje where the Swedish part is located all decision seems to be in UK now days and they have been shell shocked over Brexit.

Seeing many functions seems to be moved back from UK as we speak I can have a feeling that this might be part of the story.

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

"Best effort" is what the contacts say, figures 10 years in court to come to a conclusion, so all that would do is deciding how much money AZ gets in a decade.

Best regards
Thomas

Good luck for A-Z to get any medicine approved fast in the future. Thi will have long term effect.

since AZ is making exactly nothing without shipments out of Belgium the EU should just go "Either we get what we think the contract says we should or no one is getting anything".

best regards
Thomas

The EU should of moved faster on sorting out its vaccines. It’s all come down to that, jokes aside. As a company AZ and Pfizer should fill the orders it has agreed before moving on to whoever’s next on the list.

Arion640 wrote:

As a company AZ and Pfizer should fill the orders it has agreed before moving on to whoever’s next on the list.

The thing is Arion640, the UK initially got a theoretical 100% of the production output from A-Z (and Pfizer) because it started vaccinations a few weeks ahead of the rest of Europe.
During that period, the totla production from all plants in the EU was entirely going to the UK, and rightfully so, because there's no use in having people suffer when you have vaccines sitting in fridges that can already be administered in some jurisdictions, regardless where that patient lives.

However -and that's where A-Z failed in its conduct- they already seem to have known at that point in time their subsequent ramp up would be much slower than they had first projected and they'd be unable to also cope with the full production needs for the others too, later...

Yet they clearly decided not to say so, frearing in that case they'd not be allowed to export all of their vaccines already made and be obliged to build up a strategic reserve instead to later use. Which is why A-Z came so late with its official notification of the shortfall to the EU (less than 1 week before they are going to start deliver?), and why they can not come up with a clear explanation as to why they only discovered this issue now, nor why it is only now that it has become a problem to produce and deliver, while for others the problem is not existing...

It seems the EU is dead-serious about taking measures to retroactively get their portion of the initial limited production run too which got entrirely exported based on the false belief there would not be a shortage by the time their order was going to have to start rolling of the line and there's a case to be made here.
In any case, since the vaccines are predominantly made in the EU, if the EU puts an export ban in place it's going to get nasty for all very soon, which is why despite A-Zs denial of any wrongdoing, the UK government is starting to reach out for compromise with the EU, feeling they'd be in even deeper shit if the EU goes ahead with its plan to get its rightful share of whatever got produced in the light of this production shortfal.

Thnings need to be talked through, outside of the media attention and without any flag waving, because there are no British vaccines nor European vaccines: these are vaccines made by multinationals in different production sites throughout the continent of Europe, often with components delivered from sites in other countries: if we start with vaccine nationalism, none of us is going to get his or her vaccination this year.

Arion640 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

Good luck for A-Z to get any medicine approved fast in the future. Thi will have long term effect.

since AZ is making exactly nothing without shipments out of Belgium the EU should just go "Either we get what we think the contract says we should or no one is getting anything".

best regards
Thomas

The EU should of moved faster on sorting out its vaccines. It’s all come down to that, jokes aside. As a company AZ and Pfizer should fill the orders it has agreed before moving on to whoever’s next on the list.

I have a feeling that EU was taken by surprise by the force in the second wave. EU and was full active with Migration, BUdget and probably noone thought of it as to critical where medicines need to handle in days.

This is often a management problem.

sabenapilot wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

As a company AZ and Pfizer should fill the orders it has agreed before moving on to whoever’s next on the list.

The thing is Arion640, the UK initially got a theoretical 100% of the production output from A-Z (and Pfizer) because it started vaccinations a few weeks ahead of the rest of Europe.
During that period, the totla production from all plants in the EU was entirely going to the UK, and rightfully so, because there's no use in having people suffer when you have vaccines sitting in fridges that can already be administered in some jurisdictions, regardless where that patient lives.

However -and that's where A-Z failed in its conduct- they already seem to have known at that point in time their subsequent ramp up would be much slower than they had first projected and they'd be unable to also cope with the full production needs for the others too, later...

Yet they clearly decided not to say so, frearing in that case they'd not be allowed to export all of their vaccines already made and be obliged to build up a strategic reserve instead to later use. Which is why A-Z came so late with its official notification of the shortfall to the EU (less than 1 week before they are going to start deliver?), and why they can not come up with a clear explanation as to why they only discovered this issue now, nor why it is only now that it has become a problem to produce and deliver, while for others the problem is not existing...

It seems the EU is dead-serious about taking measures to retroactively get their portion of the initial limited production run too which got entrirely exported based on the false belief there would not be a shortage by the time their order was going to have to start rolling of the line and there's a case to be made here.
In any case, since the vaccines are predominantly made in the EU, if the EU puts an export ban in place it's going to get nasty for all very soon, which is why despite A-Zs denial of any wrongdoing, the UK government is starting to reach out for compromise with the EU, feeling they'd be in even deeper shit if the EU goes ahead with its plan to get its rightful share of whatever got produced in the light of this production shortfal.

Thnings need to be talked through, outside of the media attention and without any flag waving, because there are no British vaccines nor European vaccines: these are vaccines made by multinationals in different production sites throughout the continent of Europe, often with components delivered from sites in other countries: if we start with vaccine nationalism, none of us is going to get his or her vaccination this year.

If I (EU) invest in your (AZ) development, production setup and increase etc and now you say that someone else pays better then me (EU) I would sue you (AZ) and never come back in the future independent what you show in the contract.

Belgian regulators have launched an investigation into AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine production site near Brussels on the request of the European commission, in an escalation of the row over shortages within the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... cine-plant

If this leads out to EU sets rules that AZ cannot export to third country it is Brexit related like what happened with PPE equipment in the spring.

olle wrote:

Belgian regulators have launched an investigation into AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine production site near Brussels on the request of the European commission, in an escalation of the row over shortages within the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... cine-plant

If this leads out to EU sets rules that AZ cannot export to third country it is Brexit related like what happened with PPE equipment in the spring.

Yes, although it is not a conflict between the EU and the UK, but rather between the EU and A-Z.

As the article opening sentence says: "the EU wants to know whether doses produced on its territory have been diverted to UK:"
Which seems to be the case at first sight, since A-Z only notified of their production shortfall last friday (a week before deliveries to the EU had to start!), meaning that for the past 2 months it has been exporting ALL of its vaccines to the UK, whereas it could have kept part of them in a reserve for subsequent delivery to the EU so as to spread the production shortfall evenly amongst all of its clients.
That's definitely not a "best effort" nor a "good practice" business conduct by A-Z, and if found to have occured indeed, apart from the legal consequences this will have for the company, it seems clear the EU is going to legislate quickly to retroactively compensate for the excess in vaccines exported so far by A-Z, through setting a cap on the future export volumes by them, for some time.

It's very weird to say the least how A-Z has been struggling for days now to give 1 clear explanation: it seems to have been just a managerial decision to simply push the problem out in time and then to try to put the supply cut there where the production problem is situated (in this case the site in Belgium), only to find out to their own surprise they can't get away with this.
Very poor strategic management by the CEO of A-Z indeed, and to add insult over injury, he also tried to dodge the meeting last evening first.
Sounds to me like he knows he's on the hook here...

sabenapilot wrote:

olle wrote:

Belgian regulators have launched an investigation into AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine production site near Brussels on the request of the European commission, in an escalation of the row over shortages within the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... cine-plant

If this leads out to EU sets rules that AZ cannot export to third country it is Brexit related like what happened with PPE equipment in the spring.

Yes, although it is not a conflict between the EU and the UK, but rather between the EU and A-Z.

As the article opening sentence says: "the EU wants to know whether doses produced on its territory have been diverted to UK:"
Which seems to be the case at first sight, since A-Z only notified of their production shortfall last friday (a week before deliveries to the EU had to start!), meaning that for the past 2 months it has been exporting ALL of its vaccines to the UK, whereas it could have kept part of them in a reserve for subsequent delivery to the EU so as to spread the production shortfall evenly amongst all of its clients.
That's definitely not a "best effort" nor a "good practice" business conduct by A-Z, and if found to have occured indeed, apart from the legal consequences this will have for the company, it seems clear the EU is going to legislate quickly to retroactively compensate for the excess in vaccines exported so far by A-Z, through setting a cap on the future export volumes by them, for some time.

It's very weird to say the least how A-Z has been struggling for days now to give 1 clear explanation: it seems to have been just a managerial decision to simply push the problem out in time and then to try to put the supply cut there where the production problem is situated (in this case the site in Belgium), only to find out to their own surprise they can't get away with this.
Very poor strategic management by the CEO of A-Z indeed, and to add insult over injury, he also tried to dodge the meeting last evening first.
Sounds to me like he knows he's on the hook here...

AZ will soon have a new CEO?

sabenapilot wrote:

LJ wrote:

First reports looking at the UK trade position do not look good (and this is mostly attributed to Brexit)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/first-flashes-brexit-trade-trouble-070806117.html

Most telling is the sharp drop in competitiveness in the EU market since 2016, but also the sharp decline in the latest figures,

Brexit disruption in the first quarter of 2021 was likely to reduce British economic output by around 1%, International Monetary Fund Chief Economist Gita Gopinath said on Wednesday. Trade experts think some of the extra cost and bureaucracy will be permanent.


A 1% cut in the GDP of Q1 is in fact a massive hit!
It wipes away more than 7BN in Q1, more than 4 times the UK's annual contribution to the EU budget (so before the rebate and before any direct budget returns from the EU).
To put iit even more clearly: by March 15th or about, the budget saving from leaving the EU will be zero for the UK and beyond that date, it's only costing the UK more money to be out.
I guess the red bus promissing popular ideas to spend the money saved will have to stay parked for quite a while.

I consider that this are huge numbers. The problem is that over time when each little contract between suppliers and service suppliers and their customers during this period will be remembered and be an obstacle when renewal comes up. This cut in both directions.

olle wrote:

AZ will soon have a new CEO?

I don't know, but let's just say it's not so good for your career as CEO to start a public fight with a very big market regulator like the EC and especially not if the suspicions on willfull misconduct are proven in relation the the 'best effort' clause.

Besides, there seems to be more bad news for A-Z

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/med ... 3f56cd7cd1

It was already known that the vaccine only obtained it's high efficiency score of 90+% due to a human error in the administration during the test phase (the patients who got the prescribed dose, were only protected for 60+%), but it seems it might be quite inefficient on elderly people (which are the core group of Covid deads), leading to the recommendation that the EMA would NOT approve the vaccine for use on people over 65 years!

Curious to see what the EMA will ultimately decide, because I guess they will not want to be seen as retaliating to A-Z for this conflict between them and the EC, but at the same time there's no use in giving vaccinations to people who are not well protected afterwards too of course! But it might turn out that the speed by which some approved this vaccine may have lead them to burn it on people who can gain no real benefit from it... all the more saddening if you know these doses could have been used well on others!

It seems like UK will be forced to send back vaccines to EU;
-----------------------

Boris to cave to EU: No10 hints Britain could ship Covid jabs to Brussels bloc next month
BRITAIN could start shipping Covid jabs to the EU as early next month, the Prime Minister's official spokesman has hinted.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... er-jab-row

Arion640 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

Good luck for A-Z to get any medicine approved fast in the future. Thi will have long term effect.

since AZ is making exactly nothing without shipments out of Belgium the EU should just go "Either we get what we think the contract says we should or no one is getting anything".

best regards
Thomas

The EU should of moved faster on sorting out its vaccines. It’s all come down to that, jokes aside. As a company AZ and Pfizer should fill the orders it has agreed before moving on to whoever’s next on the list.

The orders where places 3 weeks after the UKs, and those orders where rolled over into the EU order. AZ took the order, and took the money to expend the production capacity to fulfill those orders. On top of banning exports until EU orders are fulfilled they should be looking at criminal charges against AZ personnel for fraud. Pfizer is committed to fulfill all orders aside of a temporary shorfall to expand production capacity, seems they spend the money they got as intended.

sabenapilot wrote:

olle wrote:

Belgian regulators have launched an investigation into AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine production site near Brussels on the request of the European commission, in an escalation of the row over shortages within the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... cine-plant

If this leads out to EU sets rules that AZ cannot export to third country it is Brexit related like what happened with PPE equipment in the spring.

That's definitely not a "best effort" nor a "good practice" business conduct by A-Z, and if found to have occured indeed, apart from the legal consequences this will have for the company,

At least in Germany courts have been handing down quite significant jail time for any funny business with anything related to Corona. If as much as a cent of the 200 (?) million AZ took to expand production wasn´t used as rapidly as possible to do just that, export limits may just be the least of the problem for AZs management.

best regards
Thomas

Belgium -where both the AstaZeneca as well as the Pfizer vaccines are manufactured- has just announced it is ready to use article 122 of the TEU to regulate the export of vaccines manufactured in the country to countries outside of the EU should it become clear A-Z (or others) exported a knowingly disproportional number of vaccines in the past.

link in Dutch only:
https://www.hln.be/binnenland/belgie-za ... ~a1439592/

As I understand the export restriction to third countries comes as an answer to a UK export restriction.

olle wrote:

It seems like UK will be forced to send back vaccines to EU;
-----------------------

Boris to cave to EU: No10 hints Britain could ship Covid jabs to Brussels bloc next month
BRITAIN could start shipping Covid jabs to the EU as early next month, the Prime Minister's official spokesman has hinted.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... er-jab-row

He must be delusional, still thinking that he is doing a good thing voluntarily when he is actually being forced. How much is the plant in the UK producing, sufficient to make up for the shortfall in the EU, is he taking jabs already delivered to the UK government or those from the factory?

I don't think it's only an A-Z thing. I don't really remember the timeline but I'm pretty sure we knew before last Friday that the UK had a lot of vaccines in stock, and I questioned on another thread how that was possible since in the EU there were shortages.

We knew because Scotland published the information.

So it seems to me the UK government knew what A-Z was doing and was involved in it.