What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Sam Russell

mick087 wrote: »

The EU Commission was slow off the mark.
Why was the EU Commission so slow?

Public Health is not an EU competence. Consequently, the EU had to get agreement from all 27 member states, which takes time. The intention of their action was to protect smaller states such as ourselves against the larger state (Germany and France) from looking after their own population at the expense of the rest. Remember the scandal of the fight for PPE where states were outbidding each other to get hold of the stuff, some of which was useless.

It took time.

They also had to get the EMA to approve the vaccine which took more time. The UK took a risk by approving vaccines early (which they could - and so could we have done so), and by not adhering to the science as to the dosing regime as tested, they have given more people the first dose by delaying the second dose by 70 days. The appear to be lucky that it has worked out for them so far.

They have yet to start the second dose of the programme.

Bass Reeves

embraer170 wrote: »

A few bombshells in that article. No one can say it is written on the basis of speculation since the contract is or had been on a UK gov website!

Ya last paragraph onthe article make says it all

embraer170

And the best part is:

But the UK's official contract is actually dated August 28, one day after the EU's contract.

Bass Reeves

embraer170 wrote: »

And the best part is:

So it looks more and more like AZ management took a political based decision on supply and acted in bad faith.

embraer170

It will be interesting to see how this development gets covered by other news sources (FT, BBC, Politico, etc.)

The points raised AZ's CEO in January are worth a second read. Someone must be lying.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55817633 (26/01)

He also said the EU's late decision to sign contracts had given limited time to sort out hiccups with supply.

the UK contract was signed three months before the European vaccine deal. So with the UK we have had an extra three months to fix all the glitches we experienced.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Public Health is not an EU competence. Consequently, the EU had to get agreement from all 27 member states, which takes time. The intention of their action was to protect smaller states such as ourselves against the larger state (Germany and France) from looking after their own population at the expense of the rest. Remember the scandal of the fight for PPE where states were outbidding each other to get hold of the stuff, some of which was useless.

It took time.

They also had to get the EMA to approve the vaccine which took more time. The UK took a risk by approving vaccines early (which they could - and so could we have done so), and by not adhering to the science as to the dosing regime as tested, they have given more people the first dose by delaying the second dose by 70 days. The appear to be lucky that it has worked out for them so far.

They have yet to start the second dose of the programme.

the UK didn't take any risks, they were just ahead of the EMA in the process. They all used the same data.

The UK has administered 550,000 second doses so far, but the second dose isn't due yet on the AZ ones and those will start in March. The 8 to 12 week dose regime for AZ is the same one being used by the HSE and recommended by the WHO.

Interestingly, it appears that the J&J vaccine has a 66% efficacy, which is around where the AZ one is after the first dose, which is why trials are taking place to see if a second dose gives more protection. Oxford originally created the vaccine as a single dose, but a second jab improved the efficacy significantly, hence the wide range of data on when to give the second shot.

brickster69

AZ contract was signed by AZ UK LTD which is a totally different legal entity to Astra Zeneca AB which is based in Sweden.

embraer170

brickster69 wrote: »

AZ contract was signed by AZ UK LTD which is a totally different legal entity to Astra Zeneca AB which is based in Sweden.

What does that mean?

Pete_Cavan

embraer170 wrote: »

And the best part is:

The signing of contracts has always been a total smokescreen here. It is pretty standard practice to be contractually committed before actually signing the contract, for example a Letter of Acceptance is often used to contractually commit before actually signing the contract (it confirms the main aspects of establishing a contract; offer, consideration and acceptance). It is not unusual for the actual signing of a contract to happen well after the parties have committed and is often mostly ceremonial and made into a PR stunt.

AZ confirmed in June that they were working towards producing hundreds of millions of doses for Europe, some would have you believe that they were sitting around twiddling their thumbs until the contract was signed, hence the delay. That is absolutely not the case.

brickster69

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The signing of contracts has always been a total smokescreen here. It is pretty standard practice to be contractually committed before actually signing the contract, for example a Letter of Acceptance is often used to contractually commit before actually signing the contract (it confirms the main aspects of establishing a contract; offer, consideration and acceptance). It is not unusual for the actual signing of a contract to happen well after the parties have committed and is often mostly ceremonial and made into a PR stunt.

AZ confirmed in June that they were working towards producing hundreds of millions of doses for Europe, some would have you believe that they were sitting around twiddling their thumbs until the contract was signed, hence the delay. That is absolutely not the case.

Yes, there was a pre-agreement made in May based on funding the development. You would imagine for that they would have some commitment to be supplied if everything was approved later. That other contract has been in the public domain for 3 months.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/business-secretarys-statement-on-coronavirus-covid-19-17-may-2020

deeperlearning

Health service workers very unhappy at being given AstraZeneca jab:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/health-staff-say-they-are-getting-least-efficacious-vaccine-1.4488663


At this stage, the HSE might as well start distributing the AZ vaccine to the under 55s. None of the priority groups will be happy to take it and will want the mRNA vaccines.

Strazdas

brickster69 wrote: »

AZ contract was signed by AZ UK LTD which is a totally different legal entity to Astra Zeneca AB which is based in Sweden.

AZ never used that as a defence in their row with the EC though. You would have thought they would have trotted as an excuse the minute the row blew up if they thought that was a good reason to explain delays.

brickster69

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes, there was a pre-agreement made in May based on funding the development. You would imagine for that they would have some commitment to be supplied if everything was approved later. That other contract has been in the public domain for 3 months.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/business-secretarys-statement-on-coronavirus-covid-19-17-may-2020

It mentions the government being a beneficiary of the licensing agreement in the preamble, so I would imagine that the initial Oxford/Astra Zeneca made mention of a number of doses or a certain amount of production being ring fenced for the U.K.

embraer170

Aegir wrote: »

It mentions the government being a beneficiary of the licensing agreement in the preamble, so I would imagine that the initial Oxford/Astra Zeneca made mention of a number of doses or a certain amount of production being ring fenced for the U.K.

Which would be absolutely fine if AZ's other customer(s) had been informed that such an agreement could impact the best efforts. The EU always strongly denied being warned.

The UK contract is picking up little to no traction in the media. Most of the major players that had pages of articles about the EU contract (and its apparent weaknesses) have not reported it. Not a mention even in the German media.

embraer170

embraer170 wrote: »

Which would be absolutely fine if AZ's other customer(s) had been informed that such an agreement could impact the best efforts. The EU always strongly denied being warned.

The UK contract is picking up little to no traction in the media. Most of the major players that had pages of articles about the EU contract (and its apparent weaknesses) have not reported it. Not a mention even in the German media.

In what way does it impact the Eu contract?

iamwhoiam

deeperlearning wrote: »

Health service workers very unhappy at being given AstraZeneca jab:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/health-staff-say-they-are-getting-least-efficacious-vaccine-1.4488663


At this stage, the HSE might as well start distributing the AZ vaccine to the under 55s. None of the priority groups will be happy to take it and will want the mRNA vaccines.

I am in group 5 and will take anything I get and so will all my friends and family

McGiver

What is exactly happening with Astra Zeneca?

Nothing.

It's a largely irrelevant mediocre vaccine (see Covid variants) and it was never very important for the EU (hence only 18% of the portfolio and now rapidly dropping %). Infested with issues - trial data issues, efficacy issues, politicisation of the contract etc.

The whole story is being used by Tory, Brexit and English nationalist propaganda, supported by army of useful trolls and bots, aimed against the EU to cover their internal issue of abysmal Covid death rate and Brexit fallout.

The UK propaganda originated narrative should be treated as an information warfare led against the EU (ie us) and should be exposed and attacked vigorously and then cleansed from this Republic for good.

Charles Babbage

The UK being first is one thing, but given that AZ had designed a process and got it up and running it was reasonable to suppose that they could replicate that process for orders for the EU which were coming one month later.

embraer170

Aegir wrote: »

In what way does it impact the Eu contract?

Impacts the ability to deliver.

Pete_Cavan

Aegir wrote: »

In what way does it impact the Eu contract?

If the AZ/UK licensing agreement allows for a number of doses or a certain amount of production being ring fenced for the UK then AZ have a lot of explaining to do as to why they signed a contract with the EU where they confirm that they have no other commitments which would impact their ability to fulfill the EU contract. The AZ CEO basically said that it is their commitments to the UK which were impacting them supplying the EU!

Pete_Cavan

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The UK being first is one thing, but given that AZ had designed a process and got it up and running it was reasonable to suppose that they could replicate that process for orders for the EU which were coming one month later.

But their process was up and running in the EU first, the first doses the UK received came from production sites in the EU.

embraer170

McGiver wrote: »

What is exactly happening with Astra Zeneca?

Nothing.

It's a largely irrelevant mediocre vaccine (see Covid variants) and it was never very important for the EU (hence only 18% of the portfolio and now rapidly dropping %). Infested with issues - trial data issues, efficacy issues, politicisation of the contract etc.

The whole story is being used by Tory, Brexit and English nationalist propaganda, supported by army of useful trolls and bots, aimed against the EU to cover their internal issue of abysmal Covid death rate and Brexit fallout..

It can't have been totally irrelevant if the the EU made such a huge deal out of the delay. It was unprecedented to see a Commissioner make such strong statements against a private company, send the police into a factory in Belgium, and then introduce vaccine export controls (part of all that is also a response to German pressure).

While it certainly served as a good warning to other manufacturers that might try anything, it did not do the EU reputation much good. The coverage of VDL and the Health Commissioner was pretty dreadful. It's a crisis many would like to forget.

brickster69

Aegir wrote: »

It mentions the government being a beneficiary of the licensing agreement in the preamble, so I would imagine that the initial Oxford/Astra Zeneca made mention of a number of doses or a certain amount of production being ring fenced for the U.K.

Uk contracted supply of 30 million doses to be delivered in September. Does anyone really believe they made the agreement for those doses 3 weeks before ?

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-astrazenec/delivery-timetable-for-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-slips-uk-official-says-idUKKBN27K2GU

Pete_Cavan

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If the AZ/UK licensing agreement allows for a number of doses or a certain amount of production being ring fenced for the UK then AZ have a lot of explaining to do as to why they signed a contract with the EU where they confirm that they have no other commitments which would impact their ability to fulfill the EU contract. The AZ CEO basically said that it is their commitments to the UK which were impacting them supplying the EU!

They aren’t all being made in one factory though. If the uk only took the vaccine produced at the uk factory then it shouldn’t have any impact on supplies from the AZ plants in Belgium, Netherlands and Germany.

Neither of the two plants in the uk are actually owned by AZ and I believe the original manufacturing arrangement where it was to be made by Oxford Biomedical and packaged by Weockhardt was all part of the vaccine task force strategy.

astrofool

Aegir wrote: »

the UK didn't take any risks, they were just ahead of the EMA in the process. They all used the same data.

The UK has administered 550,000 second doses so far, but the second dose isn't due yet on the AZ ones and those will start in March. The 8 to 12 week dose regime for AZ is the same one being used by the HSE and recommended by the WHO.

Interestingly, it appears that the J&J vaccine has a 66% efficacy, which is around where the AZ one is after the first dose, which is why trials are taking place to see if a second dose gives more protection. Oxford originally created the vaccine as a single dose, but a second jab improved the efficacy significantly, hence the wide range of data on when to give the second shot.

Just to correct this, the data supplied at the time of UK approval was lesser than the data used by the EMA for approval (similar for the Pfizer approval). The approval sought was also different, leading to a lower amount of data required.

You're right on the AZ not being due, but I'm not aware they are starting second dosing even for those approaching 8-12 weeks, they also haven't second dosed on Pfizer (meant to happen after 3-4 weeks).

J&J was trialled with one dose to get that efficacy, AZ was trialled with 2 doses to get that efficacy, there is no good data on what efficacy AZ reaches on 1 dose at the moment (UK should be able to provide this soon, effectively doing mass phase 3 testing for everyone).

Honestly, the AZ vaccine is good, and should be used, the J&J vaccine looks better, so for the sake of 3-4 weeks, it may end up being a bit of a blessing, even if politically it was a bit of a sh*tshow.

Pete_Cavan

Aegir wrote: »

They aren’t all being made in one factory though. If the uk only took the vaccine produced at the uk factory then it shouldn’t have any impact on supplies from the AZ plants in Belgium, Netherlands and Germany.

Neither of the two plants in the uk are actually owned by AZ and I believe the original manufacturing arrangement where it was to be made by Oxford Biomedical and packaged by Weockhardt was all part of the vaccine task force strategy.

We know that the UK didn't only get vaccines produced in the UK, the first couple of million they got came from EU sites. That was before AZ dropped the bombshell of only giving EU 30%. The EU then wanted those doses produced in the EU to be replaced by doses produced in the UK.

AZ could also supply EU from UK sites but if their contract with the UK prevents this, then AZ should have informed the EU. It would raise serious questions in relation to clause 13 (e) of the EU contract.

brickster69

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

We know that the UK didn't only get vaccines produced in the UK, the first couple of million they got came from EU sites. That was before AZ dropped the bombshell of only giving EU 30%. The EU then wanted those doses produced in the EU to be replaced by doses produced in the UK.

AZ could also supply EU from UK sites but if their contract with the UK prevents this, then AZ should have informed the EU. It would raise serious questions in relation to clause 13 (e) of the EU contract.

It does not matter if the UK got vaccines from inside the EU. There is nothing illegal about a UK company which was inside the Customs Union & single market as well as contributing towards the EU budget to conduct business with other companies.

Those companies do not belong to the EU and are free to trade with whoever the hell they wish.

AZ were under no obligation to have tens of millions of doses all packed up and ready to go in the hope that it would be approved and then they would be delivered a week later.

Tippbhoy1

mick087 wrote: »

The EU Commission was slow off the mark.
Why was the EU Commission so slow?

Are the EU taking AZ to court?
If not why?

Forget the UK and what the UK are doing they are not in the EU and are doing there own thing.
What is the EU Commission doing for us its citizens?

Lets ask what our leaders are doing for us not what the UK are doing.

Soon there will be plenty of vaccines.

The EU commission wasn’t initially responsible for vaccine procurement. They have never been responsible for anything like this before. Months into the pandemic the countries in the EU got together and said let’s procure as a block.

Are the EU taking AZ to court. Maybe they will. Right now maybe they’re trying to make the best of a bad situation and work with them. I imagine taking a company to court takes time, and the outcomes of this will be irrelevant by the time it’s resolved. Or alternatively, the EU has accepted legally they don’t have a leg to stand on.

Regardless, for a supplier to not highlight some of the risks to best endeavours such as the fact they committed to supply another country first, flag it was a first come first serve basis, say that a factory was the reason the schedule was vastly missed, when it turns out said factories have been used to supply another country, and flag the shortages with very little notice when it should have been obvious for months, means at the very least they were underhand in their dealings and bordering on immoral when lives are at stake.

People can hide behind contracts all they want if that suits them. The UK government had to have been involved in the decision to effectively nationalise the vaccine, AZ didn’t do it out of some moral FIFO basis. I can’t say I blame the UK, looking after themselves first but maybe have the guts to say it. People have memories, no country is out of this yet, for the UKs sake I hope AZ works out for them for the good of all of us, but if it doesn’t, they know where not to look for help.

As you say, there will be plenty of vaccines in due course. Just a few more people in the EU, including Irish people will die, because of the actions of AZ. They could have shared the pain across all clients, but they chose not to.

What are our leaders doing for us, we have a solid supply forecast just a little bit later than planned, we also have the best vaccines coming in huge quantities. I don’t see the EU talking any more about AZ shortfalls and blame, they’ve moved on. The UK has one of the highest Covid death rates and are gone completely off script. Maybe it will work out for them, too early to say.

If you think we would have done better in Ireland in this without the EU, then you’d be sorely mistaken. Is there lessons to be learned in the EU, yes.

Tippbhoy1

brickster69 wrote: »

It does not matter if the UK got vaccines from inside the EU. There is nothing illegal about a UK company which was inside the Customs Union & single market as well as contributing towards the EU budget to conduct business with other companies.

Those companies do not belong to the EU and are free to trade with whoever the hell they wish.

AZ were under no obligation to have tens of millions of doses all packed up and ready to go in the hope that it would be approved and then they would be delivered a week later.

Absolutely AZ were under no obligation.
Legally, I’m sure they will be fine.

The English postman who didn’t help the old woman who slipped on the ice the other day, did he break any law because I don’t think it’s ended well for him.

People can hide behind legals all they want. It’s like criminals walking out of court that everyone knows is guilty, just because a law wasn’t broken or they couldn’t prove it doesn’t mean it was ok. I have no issue with AZ deciding to fulfill the UK first, I do have an issue with not flagging this to another customer, telling bad news late, and using national borders to protect supply after they’d already used facilities outside their own borders.

Regardless, people and nations don’t forget. This isn’t over for anyone yet, for the UKs sake I hope they don’t need any help down the line

Wolf359f

brickster69 wrote: »

It does not matter if the UK got vaccines from inside the EU. There is nothing illegal about a UK company which was inside the Customs Union & single market as well as contributing towards the EU budget to conduct business with other companies.

How does a company directly contribute to the EU budget? And what relevance has it to do with a company breaching a contract, which is mainly what this will boil down to.