What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

stefanovich

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

How are they stealing vaccines? They are protecting their own supply that they purchased from being sent abroad.

NI is in the SM btw so

Perhaps they should just seize the means of production.

Pete_Cavan

brickster69 wrote: »

EMA did approve for all ages as did the WHO. Certain states did not agree with that advice and did it's own thing. Totally up to them.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/no-one-in-government-has-appetite-to-push-back-against-holohan-1.4477368

I know that EMA approved for all ages (WHO isn't a regulatory body that approves vaccines), and that individual countries decided to not give it to older people due to the lack of data in the AZ application. Instead they gave the older people mRNA vaccines which had the supporting data and were being delivered in greater quantities and giving AZ to younger people in priority groups in parallel.

Giving AZ to older people would have just been robbing Peter (health care workers for example) to pay Paul (older people) but doesn't increase the volume of vaccines and would make little difference to overall rollout. The main issue is the lack of supply coming from AZ and is still an ongoing issue. That is more likely to have led to people dying or becoming seriously ill than not giving AZ to older people but you only seem to care about deaths which you can attribute to anybody but AZ.

Pete_Cavan

stefanovich wrote: »

That's no proof of the UK hoarding. Just proof that AZ are prioritising the UK. Likely due to them having a tougher contract with AZ and AZ just wanting to avoid litigation.

But if AZ have a "tougher contract" with the UK, they should have informed the EU of this at the time. In the contract with the EU, AZ confirm that they have no other contractual commitments which would impede them meeting commitments to the EU. I'd love to know how AZ think they can square this issue.

mandrake04

Strazdas wrote: »

I don't anyway. Australia has only given 50,000 doses so far to a population of 20 million : that doesn't sound like a country which was ordering vaccines left, right and centre.

Australia has about 700K doses just sitting there anyway, that should do for the next week or two until their 1M a week domestic doses comes online.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australia-launches-diplomatic-push-after-italy-blocks-vaccine-export-20210305-p57871

is_that_so

mandrake04 wrote: »

Australia has about 700K doses just sitting there anyway, that should do for the next week or two until their 1M a week domestic doses comes online.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australia-launches-diplomatic-push-after-italy-blocks-vaccine-export-20210305-p57871

Once we get to April, with increased supplies from Pfizer, Moderna and some from J&J what AZ do becomes less important. They'll still be in the doghouse anyway and it's no bad thing that this has happened, as a reminder to AZ that the EU doesn't play games.

stefanovich

is_that_so wrote: »

EU doesn't play games.

Playing games seems to be their primary objective.

is_that_so

stefanovich wrote: »

Playing games seems to be their primary objective.

You would think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Pauliedragon

mandrake04 wrote: »

Australia has about 700K doses just sitting there anyway, that should do for the next week or two until their 1M a week domestic doses comes online.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australia-launches-diplomatic-push-after-italy-blocks-vaccine-export-20210305-p57871

I'm in regular contact with a few people in Oz and feeling there seems be they're happy to take it but are in no rush.

robinph

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I'm in regular contact with a few people in Oz and feeling there seems be they're happy to take it but are in no rush.

Can't see how a couple of weeks, or even months, one way or another makes a whole lot of difference to Australia or New Zealand. Their numbers are low enough that they are controlling things by other means for now. By the time the rest of the world is in a position to be wanting to travel that far they will both have their vaccination programs done and dusted. Even once Europe has offered vaccines to their entire population, Australia and New Zealand will still have lower case rates and will only take a short amount of time for them to vaccinate everyone themselves.

Would be useful for the northern hemisphere if Australia and New Zealand were vaccinated before their winter though, just so that we can get early indication of how things go then before our winter, but numbers are probably too low to tell us much and travel won't be up and running fully in that direction by then.

FishOnABike

loughside wrote: »

The EU stealing other peoples vaccines, breaking international law, ignoring contracts, and behaving like the tin pot dictatorship run by failed politicians it is. Good riddance we're (NI/UK) out and staying out.
Some day the parish council that is Ireland and the EU glove puppet that is Coveney et al will come to their senses and kick these clowns into touch.

Pot, meet kettle.

brickster69

Denmark & Austria recommend use for all ages

astrofool

stefanovich wrote: »

That's no proof of the UK hoarding. Just proof that AZ are prioritising the UK. Likely due to them having a tougher contract with AZ and AZ just wanting to avoid litigation.

So, should the EU ensure that AZ is prioritising the EU, just as the UK has done?

Should the EU and the UK block vaccine exports, or allow vaccine exports?

Would you be happy with the UK receiving 0 other vaccines other than AZ?

stefanovich

astrofool wrote: »

So, should the EU ensure that AZ is prioritising the EU, just as the UK has done?

The EU should have employed better lawyers and never given that von der Leyen the job.

Big difference between what the UK have done to prepare and the EU blockading goods. She's just flailing to hide her obvious incompetence.

astrofool

stefanovich wrote: »

The EU should have employed better lawyers and never given that von der Leyen the job.

Big difference between what the UK have done to prepare and the EU blockading goods. She's just flailing to hide her obvious incompetence.

I'll repeat:
So, should the EU ensure that AZ is prioritising the EU, just as the UK has done?

Should the EU and the UK block vaccine exports, or allow vaccine exports?

Would you be happy with the UK receiving 0 other vaccines other than AZ?

mick087

brickster69 wrote: »

Denmark & Austria recommend use for all ages

Thanks for all the excellent posts and links you are putting up

fly_agaric

robinph wrote: »

Would be useful for the northern hemisphere if Australia and New Zealand were vaccinated before their winter though, just so that we can get early indication of how things go then before our winter, but numbers are probably too low to tell us much and travel won't be up and running fully in that direction by then.

I highly doubt that any of these fairly successful countries will run experiments of vaccinating and then opening up inward travel while the pandemic is ongoing elsewhere!

We're the experiment here - will a mass vaccination programme get the disease under control or not given we failed catastrophically otherwise?

Pete_Cavan

Of course countries are approving AZ now for all age groups, there is data available now to support doing so. AZ didn't have enough data in their application on older people, hence why countries didn't approve it for them at the time. AZ not having enough older people in their trials is on them, had they more older people in trials (as every other vaccine had), this issue would never have arisen.

Decisions were made on the basis of the info available at the time, things get revised as more info becomes available. Looking at past decisions in the context of current info is pointless. Had the EU taken the "shur it'll probably be grand" approach to vaccine approval, the same people would be here slating them for that too.

Tippbhoy1

stefanovich wrote: »

The EU should have employed better lawyers and never given that von der Leyen the job.

Big difference between what the UK have done to prepare and the EU blockading goods. She's just flailing to hide her obvious incompetence.

We all know there is no difference in the contracts, this has been analysed by experts and stated so. The only argument seems to be hanging over two words, which is in both contracts, the Eu contract signed a day earlier.

I do agree the Uk have prepared better, as they control AZ, being a British company that only got the gig because the UK government let them, has enabled the UK government to secure and nationalise the entire UK supply. Not a vial has left the UK for anywhere else, not even these supposed friends of theirs. Meanwhile 8m Pfizer alone has come from European countries to the UK, and untold numbers of AZ. The hypocrisy of some on here echoing the British propaganda machine is pitiful, cognitive dissonance at its very best.

The argument for the brits nationalising their supply was because they invested in the sites. The EU also invested in their sites, yet we have to listen to hypocrites telling us the EU factories should be supplying other regions yet it’s ok for the UK to keep all theirs. When the Brits stand up and offer some of their supply elsewhere in advance of a surplus, to for example their friends in Canada or Australia, they might start getting some credibility. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

robinph

fly_agaric wrote: »

I highly doubt that any of these fairly successful countries will run experiments of vaccinating and then opening up inward travel while the pandemic is ongoing elsewhere!

We're the experiment here - will mass vaccination programme get the disease under control or not given we failed catastrophically otherwise?

Think you misunderstood. Not suggesting that they open up, just that them having a winter season before Europe does and with a vaccinated population would be useful data before Europe's winter happens.

The number of cases in their population, or breaking through their quarantine, isn't going to mean that much useful can be gleaned from anything.

Australia and New Zealand will be vaccinated not long after Europe and heading into a summer before any mass travel starts up again.

stefanovich

Tippbhoy1 wrote: »

We all know there is no difference in the contracts, this has been analysed by experts and stated so. The only argument seems to be hanging over two words, which is in both contracts, the Eu contract signed a day earlier.

We all don't know actually. UK contract better according to this article.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/

stefanovich

Tippbhoy1 wrote: »

Not a vial has left the UK for anywhere else, not even these supposed friends of theirs.

Totally wrong. UK have agreed to export to the EU. UK have bought way more doses than they need and have made the biggest contribution to covax.

They are being very generous.

eoinbn

is_that_so wrote: »

Once we get to April, with increased supplies from Pfizer, Moderna and some from J&J what AZ do becomes less important. They'll still be in the doghouse anyway and it's no bad thing that this has happened, as a reminder to AZ that the EU doesn't play games.

Excluding J&J then April delivers won't be much better than the expected deliveries for March. A realistic figure for April, excluding J&J is, is about 700k. J&J might push that over 800k. If AstraZeneca continue to miss their targets by over 50%, which is something that I said would happen into early Q2 back in January, then that will continue to have a major impact on our vaccine effort.

BettyS

eoinbn wrote: »

Excluding J&J then April delivers won't be much better than the expected deliveries for March. A realistic figure for April, excluding J&J is, is about 700k. J&J might push that over 800k. If AstraZeneca continue to miss their targets by over 50%, which is something that I said would happen into early Q2 back in January, then that will continue to have a major impact on our vaccine effort.

I think of the Big Famine and when the food was being shipped out of Ireland.

Poor supply of vaccines and food led to excess mortality

Tippbhoy1

stefanovich wrote: »

We all don't know actually. UK contract better according to this article.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/

I’ve already countered that In another post which you either missed or conveniently ignored, and included other world views. Outside of the headline, there is no actual content that displays a difference.

Regardless if they signed a contract with someone else after the EU, that put the EU contract at risk, they were obliged to tell them. This would be the case in any business. Negligence at best, absolute skullduggery at worst

Tippbhoy1

stefanovich wrote: »

Totally wrong. UK have agreed to export to the EU. UK have bought way more doses than they need and have made the biggest contribution to covax.

They are being very generous.

You seem to be struggling with past, present and future tense. Show me a link that shows what has been exported to date from the uk to the EU, Canada or Australia?

You do realise throwing scraps to someone when you’ve fed yourself might be your view of being generous but it isn’t really, surely you know this? And hoovering up loads more vaccine than you needed isnt something to cheer about on the generosity scales either. Btw, the UK haven’t made the biggest contribution to Covax. Do you believe this stuff or are you a complete WUM?

Tippbhoy1

Tippbhoy1 wrote: »

I’ve already countered that In another post which you either missed or conveniently ignored, and included other world views. Outside of the headline, there is no actual content that displays a difference.

Regardless if they signed a contract with someone else after the EU, that put the EU contract at risk, they were obliged to tell them. This would be the case in any business. Negligence at best, absolute skullduggery at worst

the difference wasn't so much the contract, more the way the UK went about implementing it.

The UK was proactve and made sure that manufacturing capacity was available to produce the vaccines. These are being produced at cost, so there is effectively no incentive for the company to make them. The UK understood this and helped them to bring the product to market.

The EU sat back and presumed that it could not only screw them down further on price, but also bang the table and make them jump. There is plenty of manufacturing capacity in europe for the EU to have done the same, but they didn't.

fly_agaric

robinph wrote: »

Think you misunderstood. Not suggesting that they open up, just that them having a winter season before Europe does and with a vaccinated population would be useful data before Europe's winter happens.

The number of cases in their population, or breaking through their quarantine, isn't going to mean that much useful can be gleaned from anything.

Australia and New Zealand will be vaccinated not long after Europe and heading into a summer before any mass travel starts up again.

Yeah I did - sorry. I think all of these countries will be extremely cautious about opening up fully to inward travel again. Now that their choice is made, the risks will outweigh the benefits, perhaps for even longer than the timeline you set out. Anyway will stop the off-topic posts now.

astrofool

stefanovich wrote: »

Totally wrong. UK have agreed to export to the EU. UK have bought way more doses than they need and have made the biggest contribution to covax.

They are being very generous.

You still are avoiding answering questions you don't like:

So, should the EU ensure that AZ is prioritising the EU, just as the UK has done?

Should the EU and the UK block vaccine exports, or allow vaccine exports?

Would you be happy with the UK receiving 0 other vaccines other than AZ?

But anyway, you seem to now be saying that the UK should start exporting their vaccine supply immediately to other countries, do you agree?

You can't in good faith argue that the EU should keep allowing exports, while not calling for the UK to start exporting immediately.

dogbert27

Aegir wrote: »

the difference wasn't so much the contract, more the way the UK went about implementing it.

The UK was proactve and made sure that manufacturing capacity was available to produce the vaccines. These are being produced at cost, so there is effectively no incentive for the company to make them. The UK understood this and helped them to bring the product to market.

The EU sat back and presumed that it could not only screw them down further on price, but also bang the table and make them jump. There is plenty of manufacturing capacity in europe for the EU to have done the same, but they didn't.

From August last year:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccine-price-idUSKBN25N25X

The European Commission has made a 336 million euro ($396 million) downpayment to British drug maker AstraZeneca AZN.L to secure at least 300 million doses of its potential COVID-19 vaccine, a spokesman said on Thursday.


The deal covers development, liability and other costs faced by the vaccine maker. The EU has also secured an option to buy 100 million additional doses of the vaccine under development.


The EU gave them a down payment that also included funding the development. What more do you expect, members of the EU to put on lab coats like Boris and go around for photo shoots?

Tippbhoy1

Aegir wrote: »

the difference wasn't so much the contract, more the way the UK went about implementing it.

The UK was proactve and made sure that manufacturing capacity was available to produce the vaccines. These are being produced at cost, so there is effectively no incentive for the company to make them. The UK understood this and helped them to bring the product to market.

The EU sat back and presumed that it could not only screw them down further on price, but also bang the table and make them jump. There is plenty of manufacturing capacity in europe for the EU to have done the same, but they didn't.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but you’ve moved off legals into a more ethical discussion and a discussion on facilities, away from private companies and more into national entitlements. The EU paid a contribution to facilities in the EU. In this case shouldn’t the UK return an equivalent volume back to the EU that they benefitted from in January? If you’re applying the same logic, should Australia have dibs on vaccines that are produced in the EU, which were created in part by EU money? Australia are building their own facility, they didn’t contribute to EU facilities.

Ive been consistent in that I don’t have a huge issue with the UK ring fencing their supply, I have an issue with it being kept secret, and I have an issue with the Uk pontificating about vaccine nationalism which they have actually led the way in it. Until the UK displays some generosity with another country before they’ve a surplus, and it doesn’t have to be the EU, then they’ve acted very shabbily through all this in my view