What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Call me Al

https://twitter.com/AnthonyGlees/status/1355063444114956291?s=20
If there is one iota of truth in this it is absolutely appalling behaviour on the part of Boris Johnson and his government.
Absolutely disgusting.

opinionated3

Call me Al wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AnthonyGlees/status/1355063444114956291?s=20
If there is one iota of truth in this it is absolutely appalling behaviour on the part of Boris Johnson and his government.
Absolutely disgusting.

It's Boris Johnson. It's the Tories. Are you surprised??

Pete_Cavan

I seriously doubt that AZ were ordered by the UK govt not to disclose a clause, the UK govt most likely had absolutely no input or involvement whatsoever in negotiations between AZ and EU.

If there is any foul play (which hasn't been proved yet, hence why I use the term if meaning what I am about to say is conditional on there being foul play), it must have happened more recently, probably after AZ first notified that they were not going to meet targets. It is possible that the UK told them to keep all UK manufactured stock in the UK, the AZ CEO pretty much said that in his interview.

Call me Al

opinionated3 wrote: »

It's Boris Johnson. It's the Tories. Are you surprised??

Not surprised, more so disappointed.. .

Disappointed that, if this is true, they would reduce themselves to this low.
I've a poor opinion of the man and his party.
But i really thought something like this would be a no-go zone.

SheepsClothing

There is nothing in the original tweets to suggest that the UK had anything to do with the EU's contract. Saying the UK Government asked Astra Zenica not to disclose their prior commitment to the UK is wild speculation.

Call me Al

SheepsClothing wrote: »

There is nothing in the original tweets to suggest that the UK had anything to do with the EU's contract. Saying the UK Government asked Astra Zenica not to disclose their prior commitment to the UK is wild speculation.

Well someone is lying.

But it'll all come out in the wash.

Tyrone212

Do we know what time today the EMA is expected to give their decision on the Oxford vaccine?

micosoft

NSAman wrote: »

I don’t think it is an absurd fallacy at all. The EU have to prove that they were in control of the situation. A lot is riding on this. The centralisation of ordering is always going to be a Bad idea..imho. The EU is in charge of this distribution and ordering policy. It has gone bad, they obviously are screaming. The UK obviously sanctioned this vaccine before the EU. That much is evident.

The contracts which I am very surprised have not been publicly available, will clear up who is right and who is wrong in this scenario.

I am neither pro or anti any side. But, my gut is telling me the EU has f**ked up rightly here and is now looking to pass blame.

If they don’t get their way, their credibility is at stake!

Why stop there? Why have centralised procurement in Ireland? Let everyone fight for themselves? Or private health insurance firms?

Apart from being unethical as poorer people and countries would suffer, there is no evidence at all that allowing a free for all would be better. In fact the evidence is from the AZ case actually supports the use of centralised procurement and pan European cooperation because it demonstrates what happens when one country priorities itself at the expense of other countries.

Frankly you are taking "sides" if instead of relying on the emerging facts you simply have a "gut feeling" that you want to blame the EU. Along with being completely confused on the timeline and conflating approval with ordering. Fed by UK media propaganda no doubt.

micosoft

Call me Al wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AnthonyGlees/status/1355063444114956291?s=20
If there is one iota of truth in this it is absolutely appalling behaviour on the part of Boris Johnson and his government.
Absolutely disgusting.

Whatever about AZ this proves too things...

1. Far from proving the EU centralised agreement was a bad thing it demonstrates why it was necessary. Imagine 27 countries behaving like this?

2. John Bruton once called Brexit an "Unfriendly act" to Ireland. If the UK accepting EU made vaccines but refusing to allow UK made vaccines to be sent to the EU is true it is nothing less than an unfriendly act. This will have severe consequences - not just for the next set of vaccines produced in the EU that the UK expects but all future relationships. Unfortunately we have a lot of British brexiteers trying to make out the UK was cleverer on the contract or this is some reflection of bureaucratic Brussels. Missing the point that regardless of dubious legality it was morally wrong and will have severe reputational consequences.

suicide_circus

McGiver wrote: »

the EU contract needs approval from EU27 and signature by the EC.

You are aware that the UK is a single country whereas the EU is a confederation of 27 countries.

This brings boths strengths and weaknesses.

brickster69

Nice to see a bit of common sense amid all this AZ - EU confusion


https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1355076069301350401

9db3xj7z41fs5u

brickster69 wrote: »

Nice to see a bit of common sense amid all this AZ - EU confusion


https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1355076069301350401

One question, if it’s so easy to produce lots more, then why is there such a supply issue?

Russman

brickster69 wrote: »

Nice to see a bit of common sense amid all this AZ - EU confusion


https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1355076069301350401

If, and I stress "if", the UK are blocking AZ from exporting vaccines to the EU from their UK plants to fulfil their contractual obligations, then surely it would be a perfectly sensible response for the EU to reciprocate, no ?

Russman

Russman wrote: »

If, and I stress "if", the UK are blocking AZ from exporting vaccines to the EU from their UK plants to fulfil their contractual obligations, then surely it would be a perfectly sensible response for the EU to reciprocate, no ?

Or it could be the case of an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. There is no point starting trade wars right now, there isn't enough AZ to go around right now that is simple fact. Maybe some simple compromises and shared goals could be explored, UK could perhaps let a portion of their supply go to the EU now and in return maybe some of the EU Pfizer allocation could head the other way in a a few months.

Added to that, if the UK factory is producing better yield than Belgium, then maybe the companies operating the plants can work together to figure out why and get it sorted.

Pete_Cavan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Or it could be the case of an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. There is no point starting trade wars right now, there isn't enough AZ to go around right now that is simple fact. Maybe some simple compromises and shared goals could be explored, UK could perhaps let a portion of their supply go to the EU now and in return maybe some of the EU Pfizer allocation could head the other way in a a few months.

Added to that, if the UK factory is producing better yield than Belgium, then maybe the companies operating the plants can work together to figure out why and get it sorted.

There isn't enough AZ to go around and it's time to collaborate but only after the UK wrangled most of it for themselves? That was grand but EU taking a similar approach with other vaccines is starting a trade war?

All factories producing AZ are ultimately the responsibility of AZ. It is up to them to ensure they are meeting production. Not for other companies to come together, its up to AZ to sort their **** out. Seems odd that the first few million doses of AZ the UK received came from Europe but now UK factories are producing better yields. There are serious questions to be asked where EU money was invested.

rameire

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_302

Details and contract I believe have been released on the above link.

mick087

Hurrache wrote: »

You're still believing in falsehoods, because you obviously chose to, since this first arose earlier this week.

The only thing i believe or have made comment on is my question Why was the EU commission slow off the mark in ordering this particular vaccine.
I believe they was slow in this case.

Are you as EU citizen happy with our representatives the EU commission performance on acquiring and rolling out to its citizens this particular vaccine up to this point?

The same people slaughtering the EU for their reaction to this would also be slaughtering the EU if they just let AZ stomp all over them

plodder

rameire wrote: »

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_302

Details and contract I believe have been released on the above link.

Contract governed by Belgian law. So, that is where AZ will be taken to the cleaners courts.

gaming_needs90

rameire wrote: »

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_302

Details and contract I believe have been released on the above link.

Wow, it does look like this is the UK gov doing so. In the sense that they blocked off the UK factories for a certain amount of time/doses.

Either that OR AZ "forgot" about this and didn't inform the commission.

Sweet.Science

Jeez did they honestly think the EU were mugs or something

PhilOssophy

Evan Rich Storefront wrote: »

One question, if it’s so easy to produce lots more, then why is there such a supply issue?

Thread is TLDR, but I heard Kingston Mills say the other day that one of the ingredients needs to be cultured, and scaling this is not easy.

Pete_Cavan

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There isn't enough AZ to go around and it's time to collaborate but only after the UK wrangled most of it for themselves? That was grand but EU taking a similar approach with other vaccines is starting a trade war?

All factories producing AZ are ultimately the responsibility of AZ. It is up to them to ensure they are meeting production. Not for other companies to come together, its up to AZ to sort their **** out. Seems odd that the first few million doses of AZ the UK received came from Europe but now UK factories are producing better yields. There are serious questions to be asked where EU money was invested.

At this point you can't take it back out of people's arms.

Two other vaccines coming down the line are also to be produced in the UK, Novovax and Valneva.

It this gets down to the EU blocking the UK's access to the Pfizer doses it might do more harm than good. As the UK have also taken a daft approach to Pfizer dosing it could also potentially deny a lot of people a second dose, which I wouldn't like to see happen under any circumstance.

People are looking for an immediate fix when there isn't one.

kieran26

mick087 wrote: »

The only thing i believe or have made comment on is my question Why was the EU commission slow off the mark in ordering this particular vaccine.
I believe they was slow in this case.

Are you as EU citizen happy with our representatives the EU commission performance on acquiring and rolling out to its citizens this particular vaccine up to this point?

I don't normally respond in any of these forums but i do read them quite a lot. so i have to counter this.

A small bit hypothetical but..
Contact law is fairly standard across most countries,
If AZ signed a contract with the UK in June to say we can provide you with x number of doeses in a certain timeframe. then AZ have to abide by that contract subject to any terms and conditions of that contract.
If AZ subsequently went on to sign a contract with the EU to say we will proide x number of doses in a certain timeframe (JAN- JUN) then AZ have to abide by that contract subject to its terms and conditions.
The two contacts are exclusive, AZ have to abide by both of the contracts, you cannot reduce the conditions of one contract by signing another contract with a third party, they have to abide by the terms of both contracts on the terms and conditions of each individual contract. Whether its one or two or twenty. it doesn't matter when they were signed. Its the clauses of the contract that determine who is right and who is wrong.

A simpler anology would be if I contracted a builder to build a house for me between January and June, and the builder also had a contact signed to build my neighbours house between October and March, the builder cannot come to me and say I can't build your house because I'm currently buiding your neighbours house. The builder signed a contract to build both housed within the timeframes so they must abide by the terms of both contracts as they are seperate.
If it turns out that my neighbour offered more money and put pressure on the builder to prioritise his house build, or the builder diverted funds I had paid him for my house to my neighbours house, that does not absolve the builder of his contractual obligations to me and i am entiltled to recourse legally.

It all comes down to the clauses in the contract now that its been published, the truth of who is in the right and who is in the wrong will come out and someone who is more knowledgeable of contract law than myself may be able to interpret it quicker than i can.
On the face of it the EU have been quite naiive in their dealings with AZ and should have got more assurances
I don't think the UK really have too much of a case to answer unless it turns out there were some underhanded tactics which i haven't seen any evidence of.

FileNotFound

mick087 wrote: »

The only thing i believe or have made comment on is my question Why was the EU commission slow off the mark in ordering this particular vaccine.
I believe they was slow in this case.

Are you as EU citizen happy with our representatives the EU commission performance on acquiring and rolling out to its citizens this particular vaccine up to this point?

Was that not do do with the poor filing that was submitted?

All pharma have been presubmitting for review - eu looked at early data before ordering.

AZ trial seems a bit of a farce - so maybe the slow approval and ordering are connected.

Just speculating.

mick087

kieran26 wrote: »

I don't normally respond in any of these forums but i do read them quite a lot. so i have to counter this.

A small bit hypothetical but..
Contact law is fairly standard across most countries,
If AZ signed a contract with the UK in June to say we can provide you with x number of doeses in a certain timeframe. then AZ have to abide by that contract subject to any terms and conditions of that contract.
If AZ subsequently went on to sign a contract with the EU to say we will proide x number of doses in a certain timeframe (JAN- JUN) then AZ have to abide by that contract subject to its terms and conditions.
The two contacts are exclusive, AZ have to abide by both of the contracts, you cannot reduce the conditions of one contract by signing another contract with a third party, they have to abide by the terms of both contracts on the terms and conditions of each individual contract. Whether its one or two or twenty. it doesn't matter when they were signed. Its the clauses of the contract that determine who is right and who is wrong.

A simpler anology would be if I contracted a builder to build a house for me between January and June, and the builder also had a contact signed to build my neighbours house between October and March, the builder cannot come to me and say I can't build your house because I'm currently buiding your neighbours house. The builder signed a contract to build both housed within the timeframes so they must abide by the terms of both contracts as they are seperate.
If it turns out that my neighbour offered more money and put pressure on the builder to prioritise his house build, or the builder diverted funds I had paid him for my house to my neighbours house, that does not absolve the builder of his contractual obligations to me and i am entiltled to recourse legally.

It all comes down to the clauses in the contract now that its been published, the truth of who is in the right and who is in the wrong will come out and someone who is more knowledgeable of contract law than myself may be able to interpret it quicker than i can.
On the face of it the EU have been quite naiive in their dealings with AZ and should have got more assurances
I don't think the UK really have too much of a case to answer unless it turns out there were some underhanded tactics which i haven't seen any evidence of.

The contract was not my issue or my question.

FileNotFound

kieran26 wrote: »

I don't normally respond in any of these forums but i do read them quite a lot. so i have to counter this.

A small bit hypothetical but..
Contact law is fairly standard across most countries,
If AZ signed a contract with the UK in June to say we can provide you with x number of doeses in a certain timeframe. then AZ have to abide by that contract subject to any terms and conditions of that contract.
If AZ subsequently went on to sign a contract with the EU to say we will proide x number of doses in a certain timeframe (JAN- JUN) then AZ have to abide by that contract subject to its terms and conditions.
The two contacts are exclusive, AZ have to abide by both of the contracts, you cannot reduce the conditions of one contract by signing another contract with a third party, they have to abide by the terms of both contracts on the terms and conditions of each individual contract. Whether its one or two or twenty. it doesn't matter when they were signed. Its the clauses of the contract that determine who is right and who is wrong.

A simpler anology would be if I contracted a builder to build a house for me between January and June, and the builder also had a contact signed to build my neighbours house between October and March, the builder cannot come to me and say I can't build your house because I'm currently buiding your neighbours house. The builder signed a contract to build both housed within the timeframes so they must abide by the terms of both contracts as they are seperate.
If it turns out that my neighbour offered more money and put pressure on the builder to prioritise his house build, or the builder diverted funds I had paid him for my house to my neighbours house, that does not absolve the builder of his contractual obligations to me and i am entiltled to recourse legally.

It all comes down to the clauses in the contract now that its been published, the truth of who is in the right and who is in the wrong will come out and someone who is more knowledgeable of contract law than myself may be able to interpret it quicker than i can.
On the face of it the EU have been quite naiive in their dealings with AZ and should have got more assurances
I don't think the UK really have too much of a case to answer unless it turns out there were some underhanded tactics which i haven't seen any evidence of.

May be right.

But let's say you had a contract with a builder for a 4 bed house... And agreed a build start date.

Onky thing is, when the builder shows up you haven't bought the land yet.

Is he/she to blame. Or you? For the potential impacts.

To be clear I personally think AZ have a lot to answer for but do wonder if the EU is on as solid ground as they assumed.

Really do not want to see any blocking of vaccines going out of EU - the long term impact would be massive.

mick087

FileNotFound wrote: »

Was that not do do with the poor filing that was submitted?

All pharma have been presubmitting for review - eu looked at early data before ordering.

AZ trial seems a bit of a farce - so maybe the slow approval and ordering are connected.

Just speculating.

I have no idea but i would like an explanation from the EU commission why it took 3 months longer to order?

The contract well that will be decided in the court if AZ and EU don't sort it before.

trixi001

rameire wrote: »

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_302

Details and contract I believe have been released on the above link.

I does state constantly in the document best reasonable effort...

It also states that for the purposes of SEction 5.4 the EU manufacturing sites shall include the UK..

Despite having studied contract law, i don't think this is clear cut..

If at the time of signing this AZ believed they could fulfil the UK guarantee order (and we would need to see that contract too...) and the EU contract also, then i think they are ok, as they are using their best reasonable effort to fulfil the EU contract...

If at the time of signing AZ didn't think it was possible to do both, then t has been signed in bad faith.

AZ seem to have made the decision that UK manufactures UK vaccines and EU manufactures EU vaccine, which is probably what they believed was the best way to fulfil the contracts.. does this constitute best reasonable effort?


Best Reasonable effort is defined as
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

irelandrover

FileNotFound wrote: »

May be right.

But let's say you had a contract with a builder for a 4 bed house... And agreed a build start date.

Onky thing is, when the builder shows up you haven't bought the land yet.

Is he/she to blame. Or you? For the potential impacts.

To be clear I personally think AZ have a lot to answer for but do wonder if the EU is on as solid ground as they assumed.

Really do not want to see any blocking of vaccines going out of EU - the long term impact would be massive.

Wouldn't a better analogy be if you had already paid a company to deliver blocks.
When they arrive you don't have a builder or planning permission. That shouldn't matter to them as they have been paid to deliver blocks.