COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

Pete_Cavan

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The EU contract doesn't specifically state that the initial doses should be made in the EU. That clause mentions best efforts.

and why, pray tell, do you think the EU wanted that for the initial doses, but were happy for future doses to include UK plants?

Gael23

The contracts states the amount to be supplied but it doesn’t specify anything about when they will be supplied, that’s the problem.
To be honest at this point Vin Der Leyen has some explaining to do

brickster69

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The EU contract doesn't specifically state that the initial doses should be made in the EU. That clause mentions best efforts, a phrase which apparently makes delivery targets null and void yet is very specific when it suits your argument. Then when it came to AZ failing to meet Q2 deliveries by 50%, they said they could supply from elsewhere, basically saying the exact opposite of their excuse for Q1 underperformance.

The contract never mentions best efforts it mentions " reasonable best efforts " which means try it's best.

Page 41 of the contract clearly states the delivery is an estimation not a guarantee and monthly doses are subject to approval. So the first two dates get pushed back because approval was not granted until the end of January.

https://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2021/02/19/1613725900577_AZ_FIRMATO_REPORT.pdf

Tippbhoy1

Aegir wrote: »

it wasn't to the detriment of everyone else, the AZ vaccine is being made all over the world. millions of doses have already been delivered to African countries via Covax.

Why did the EU contract specifically state that the initial doses should be made in the EU, but after that, they could come from the EU or the UK?

Because they knew that the factories in the UK, the ones set up by the UK government, were committed to delivering their UK orders first.

Read section 5.4 of the contract for yourself and note EU included UK.

Pete_Cavan

Aegir wrote: »

and why, pray tell, do you think the EU wanted that for the initial doses, but were happy for future doses to include UK plants?

The initial doses are the full 300m ordered, further doses are the 100m optional doses. It is for AZ to fulfill the order they signed up to, whereverthe doses come from. AZ even sent a few million doses produced in the EU to the UK, the first deliveries the UK got, contributing to their EU deficit. They were apparently unable to replace them with UK produced doses.

is_that_so

Gael23 wrote: »

The contracts states the amount to be supplied but it doesn’t specify anything about when they will be supplied, that’s the problem.
To be honest at this point Vin Der Leyen has some explaining to do

AZ have shafted us on deliveries over the last four weeks, that's not about the initial contracts. Best effort is starting to look like they just picked random bodies to run their production line.

Pete_Cavan

brickster69 wrote: »

The contract never mentions best efforts it mentions " reasonable best efforts " which means try it's best.

Page 41 of the contract clearly states the delivery is an estimation not a guarantee and monthly doses are subject to approval. So the first two dates get pushed back because approval was not granted until the end of January.

https://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2021/02/19/1613725900577_AZ_FIRMATO_REPORT.pdf

So "reasonable best efforts" means try it's best but its grand if we only deliver 30% of the target in relation to supply but in another clause "reasonable best efforts" to manufacture in the EU means manufacturing in the EU only? Very loose and open ended in one but specific and restrictive in another.

Approval has nothing to do with production. AZ were still able produce before approval, there was no risk as even if EU didn't approve it, they could have just sent the stock to the UK instead. AZ were late in applying and it was approved within 3 weeks. These are all just excuses to cover their production issues.

Tippbhoy1

Tippbhoy1 wrote: »

Read section 5.4 of the contract for yourself and note EU included UK.

not for the initial doses and it only relates to clause 5.4.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The initial doses are the full 300m ordered, further doses are the 100m optional doses. It is for AZ to fulfill the order they signed up to, whereverthe doses come from. AZ even sent a few million doses produced in the EU to the UK, the first deliveries the UK got, contributing to their EU deficit. They were apparently unable to replace them with UK produced doses.

and yet the UK is not included in the EU for the initial doses. Why do you think that is.

Also interesting to note that the EU have said that if AZ fails to deliver, then they have the option to recommend Contract Manufacturing Organisations in the EU that can do it. Has this been done? have the EU tried to get the vaccine made elsewhere?

I have a hunch that the original consortium (Germany, France, Netherlands and Italy) had already started down this route and were identifying plants and facilites etc to produce the vaccine in the same way the UK had. AZ are doing this at cost and this should be recognised and their efforst supported. Then the EU took over, screwed them down on price and gave nothing back, effectively ****ing the whole thing up, which is why there was a fairly high level of anger directed at the EU Commission and why the Commission has spent the last two months shouting "Look over there".

Melanchthon

hynesie08 wrote: »

A single market country not in the EU with one of the wealthiest populations on the planet........

Fair comparison.

I would hazard that Ireland is likely spending more per capita on Covid restriction costs at the minute than Switzerland is.

astrofool

Aegir wrote: »

but they aren't though. What makes you think they are?

But they are, the EU has specifically asked for AZ to make up the shortfall, using UK facilities if necessary, and the UK refused. (forgot to add about bojo's hurried call to the EU to keep the Pfizer supply going when the EU announced export controls, wonder how much shoe licking went on there).

Aegir wrote: »

Nothing hypocritical about it at all.

It's completely hypocritical, your argument basically boils down to the UK being allowed to hoard vaccines, but the EU not being allowed to hoard vaccines and being bombastic about the UK, and criticising the EU, you can't be on both sides, either the EU is bailing out the UK by allowing the Pfizer vaccine to be exported there, and the UK isn't reciprocating, or the EU is wrong in allowing the Pfizer vaccines to be exported while the UK locks down supply for itself, it can't be both no matter how you try and twist it around in your own head.

Micky 32

“”Pfizer/BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine offers more protection than earlier thought with effectiveness in preventing symptomatic disease reaching 97%, according to real-world evidence published by the pharmaceutical companies.””


https://twitter.com/coronavirusgoo1/status/1369982659603144706?s=21

astrofool

Melanchthon wrote: »

I would hazard that Ireland is likely spending more per capita on Covid restriction costs at the minute than Switzerland is.

It's also doubtful that the Swiss will be paying any more than the EU for it, they'll be subject to the same supply contract that the EU is.

When the deal is announced, it's for a total to be delivered, not an all at once delivery. Same as when countries announce a deal with a company directly, it will only kick in after the EU has its deliveries, not before (by which stage we'll have 5 vaccines per person). It's really for booster shots if needed (and so far they're looking unnecessary).

DubLad69

With all of these other EU countries halting the use of the Astrazenica vaccine, is there any chance of us getting the doses that they are not using?

astrofool

DubLad69 wrote: »

With all of these other EU countries halting the use of the Astrazenica vaccine, is there any chance of us getting the doses that they are not using?

doubtful, either it's an issue (quite unlikely) and they'll remove the authorisation, or it's fine (highly likely) and they will all get used.

While AZ has been slower to rollout on the continent, they will all get used. We in Ireland have an annual vaccination program, and do vaccines for kids continually, so we're generally setup to get vaccines done quickly, the HSE is great at it (it's woeful at other things), most of the issues we have are with logistics in places with low numbers, or getting GPs organised, in France it's massive bureaucracy due to scandals in the early noughties.

Breaston Plants

Probably asked ( and answered) already, but why are we not going with the Russian vaccine Sputnik? And are any European countries planning on using this?

is_that_so

Breaston Plants wrote: »

Probably asked ( and answered) already, but why are we not going with the Russian vaccine Sputnik? And are any European countries planning on using this?

It's under rolling review by the EMA, so probably at least April. A few are planning to use it now.

astrofool

is_that_so wrote: »

It's under rolling review by the EMA, so probably at least April. A few are planning to use it now.

Hungary is already using it. If/when it gets EMA approval, they'll be able to manufacture it in EU plants, which will increase supply. It will be in the same short supply as other vaccines, so probably not that useful for Ireland until we won't need it anyway (June/July).

lbj666

Micky 32 wrote: »

“”Pfizer/BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine offers more protection than earlier thought with effectiveness in preventing symptomatic disease reaching 97%, according to real-world evidence published by the pharmaceutical companies.””

Where would we be target wise if at some point say after the at risk groups are done, that it was 1st dose for everyone before anyone gets their 2nd (assuming within 3 months) , including Pfizer given the evidence after 1st dose is ever growing and could hopefully lead to a change to their label.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

But they are, the EU has specifically asked for AZ to make up the shortfall, using UK facilities if necessary, and the UK refused. (forgot to add about bojo's hurried call to the EU to keep the Pfizer supply going when the EU announced export controls, wonder how much shoe licking went on there).

why should the UK get involved, it has nothing to do with them.

astrofool wrote: »

It's completely hypocritical, your argument basically boils down to the UK being allowed to hoard vaccines, but the EU not being allowed to hoard vaccines and being bombastic about the UK, and criticising the EU, you can't be on both sides, either the EU is bailing out the UK by allowing the Pfizer vaccine to be exported there, and the UK isn't reciprocating, or the EU is wrong in allowing the Pfizer vaccines to be exported while the UK locks down supply for itself, it can't be both no matter how you try and twist it around in your own head.

I tried to come up with a response to that, but it is so ridiculous it only deserves a LOL to be honest.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Aegir wrote: »

why should the UK get involved, it has nothing to do with them.

Because Astra Zenaca seem to be producing high volumes of the vaccine in the UK and because Astra Zenaca got approval from the EMA for the UK factories.

muddypuppy

Breaston Plants wrote: »

Probably asked ( and answered) already, but why are we not going with the Russian vaccine Sputnik? And are any European countries planning on using this?

Because it's not like Russia has warehouses full of it around to sell. They have vaccinated a very small portion of their population, and the doses sent outside of the border are very few and mostly a geopolitical ploy more than anything else.
I'm all for looking into using all the vaccines, the EMA is looking into Sputnik and they're looking into increasing manufacturing (they have deals to do that around the world) but it's not like we can knock on Vladimir's door and have a few million doses shipped to us tomorrow.

odyssey06

astrofool wrote: »

It's completely hypocritical, your argument basically boils down to the UK being allowed to hoard vaccines, but the EU not being allowed to hoard vaccines and being bombastic about the UK, and criticising the EU, you can't be on both sides, either the EU is bailing out the UK by allowing the Pfizer vaccine to be exported there, and the UK isn't reciprocating, or the EU is wrong in allowing the Pfizer vaccines to be exported while the UK locks down supply for itself, it can't be both no matter how you try and twist it around in your own head.

Are the UK hoarding vaccines ie sitting on stockpiles they arent using?
Or is it only Germany and France doing that?

astrofool

Aegir wrote: »

why should the UK get involved, it has nothing to do with them.



I tried to come up with a response to that, but it is so ridiculous it only deserves a LOL to be honest.

Your entire argument seems to be:

AstraZeneca can morph between being an independent UK/Swedish company or can be controlled entirely by the UK government depending on whichever yarn you're trying to spin at any particular moment.

Contract? They're a company. EU wants supply, UK wants access first and funded them from the exchequer. EU funds them, and they're back to being a company again.

It's ridiculous and hypocritical and seems to be some sort of clapping seal homage to bojo.

Apogee

NPHET Briefing

Butler/NIAC: Updated advice has been forwarded to acting CMO regarding use of AZ (for over 70s).

ACitizenErased

Good news about AZ for over 70s. Will significantly simplify the process for GPs.

JacksonHeightsOwn

muddypuppy wrote: »

Because it's not like Russia has warehouses full of it around to sell. They have vaccinated a very small portion of their population, and the doses sent outside of the border are very few and mostly a geopolitical ploy more than anything else.
I'm all for looking into using all the vaccines, the EMA is looking into Sputnik and they're looking into increasing manufacturing (they have deals to do that around the world) but it's not like we can knock on Vladimir's door and have a few million doses shipped to us tomorrow.

I agree with what you're saying except for the bit about not being able to knock on Vlads door

If there's one thing you could count on it would be putins love of notoriety and money. Not saying we should do this, but hypothetically speaking, if we did offer him a hefty price per dose you'd bet your bottom dollar he'd sell to us. Or anyone for that matter

Turtwig

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Good news about AZ for over 70s. Will significantly simplify the process for GPs.

We don't yet know what the changes will be. NIAC had previously advised that cohort 4 should get the MRNA vaccines where timely. It may still remain the case that the MRNA are preferable for over 70s.

Skyfloater

chrisbonnie wrote: »

I agree with what you're saying except for the bit about not being able to knock on Vlads door

If there's one thing you could count on it would be putins love of notoriety and money. Not saying we should do this, but hypothetically speaking, if we did offer him a hefty price per dose you'd bet your bottom dollar he'd sell to us. Or anyone for that matter

I do wish people would stop with this fantastical nonsense.

Apogee

Irish Examiner wrote:

An antigen test has been cleared for use in meat plants while trials are continuing for other workplaces, the national clinical director for Health Protection has said. Dr Lorraine Doherty said the HSE has been working with the Department of Agriculture on the tests, which can rapidly detect the presence or absence of the Covid-19 antigen. They validated and trialled a number of different antigen tests by using them in parallel with the gold-standard PCR tests. She told the Oireachtas Health Committee: “We have now validated one test which can be used in that [meat plant] setting.” Testing will ramp up to twice a week using antigen tests, she said, though she warned it would not be a straightforward process.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40241837.html

Water John

Apogee wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40241837.html

Hopefully will be able to control that environment.