What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

The European Commission is concerned about where its money went basically.

AstraZeneca were paid €336 million as a downpayment to assist with the R&D and production expansion effort and there's a commitment to order €750m worth of product from them. That isn't small change.

Stella Kyriakides, European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety's statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLIs2tZ7Cp4

As to what's happening. The answer is we don't know, but by the looks of it we'll be finding out shortly. She seems to be absolutely furious and I don't think they would kick off that level of undiplomatic language without there being more to this than a little misunderstanding.

Hopefully that's all it is though, but we'll see. There's a meeting tonight.

I think the EU have lost the plot on this AZ are a private company, entered into a contract for supply of a vaccine, that's the easy bit.

The EU obviously got all excited but there's a slight flaw in the notion any private company, supplying a product that has yet to be approved by the very organisation purchasing it can be expected not to start supplying those who have approved their product. I find it hard to believe AZ could be expected not to supply to those waiting and have approved its vaccine.

I understand the EU has paid for a set amount of doses but if logic dictates the product in question was at time yet to be actually produced, let alone approved, how could the company be able to determine an actual delivery date, in essence the company could easily say, we'll get to you eventually. It might seem far fetched but I strongly suspect AZ "s lawyers have their T" s crossed whilst typically the EU wants it cake and eat it.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

They dont approve based on safety or not. They approve a product and the dosage.

If they approved based on safety alone it would have been approved in September.

Weak! You don’t work for the EMA and you don’t know what they approve on!

Excuses excuses!

Pinoy adventure wrote: »

There getting a higher price elsewhere

THEY’RE selling at barely more than cost! Unlike the rest who are charging 20 times the price!

Dempo1 wrote: »

I understand the EU has paid for a set amount of doses but if logic dictates the product in question was at time yet to be actually produced, let alone approved, how could the company be able to determine an actual delivery date, in essence the company could easily say, we'll get to you eventually. It might seem far fetched but I strongly suspect AZ "s lawyers have their T" s crossed whilst typically the EU wants it cake and eat it.

As I understand it they also paid for it to be stockpiled for the EU prior to approval so that at whatever date it was approved there would be more dose's the later it was approved .

Dempo1 wrote: »

I think the EU have lost the plot on this AZ are a private company, entered into a contract for supply of a vaccine, that's the easy bit.

The EU obviously got all excited but there's a slight flaw in the notion any private company, supplying a product that has yet to be approved by the very organisation purchasing it can be expected not to start supplying those who have approved their product. I find it hard to believe AZ could be expected not to supply to those waiting and have approved its vaccine.

I understand the EU has paid for a set amount of doses but if logic dictates the product in question was at time yet to be actually produced, let alone approved, how could the company be able to determine an actual delivery date, in essence the company could easily say, we'll get to you eventually. It might seem far fetched but I strongly suspect AZ "s lawyers have their T" s crossed whilst typically the EU wants it cake and eat it.

I'm not sure what you are not understanding about it.



If AZ took the EU money and then decided to sell the product to others then it is like as if you financed your local mechanic up front to buy some classic car you identified in order to refurbish it for you, you paid for the materials as he went along, and when you arrived to collect it he said "ah, I sold it to some other fella yesterday but sure I'll find you another one"

Dressoutlet wrote: »

The EU jeopardising the health of one country to spite another Warren's a little more than having a 'hump'
It's a downright dangerous precedent and should be nipped on the bud completely.

Yes we would be short of vaccines but that would be the fdault of the EU trying to play supreme ruler and not because the company rightfully pulled out.

What is the name of god are you posting about?

Dempo1 wrote: »

I think the EU have lost the plot on this AZ are a private company, entered into a contract for supply of a vaccine, that's the easy bit.

The EU obviously got all excited but there's a slight flaw in the notion any private company, supplying a product that has yet to be approved by the very organisation purchasing it can be expected not to start supplying those who have approved their product. I find it hard to believe AZ could be expected not to supply to those waiting and have approved its vaccine.

I understand the EU has paid for a set amount of doses but if logic dictates the product in question was at time yet to be actually produced, let alone approved, how could the company be able to determine an actual delivery date, in essence the company could easily say, we'll get to you eventually. It might seem far fetched but I strongly suspect AZ "s lawyers have their T" s crossed whilst typically the EU wants it cake and eat it.

What if the contract said, if we approve at any stage in January, you will have 60,000,000 doses available in February?

Then in this scenario AZ says, if you approve in Feb we can provide 60% less due to production delays. Then the EU thinks the production delays while valid are not the full story and the contract terms both parties agreed to weren’t achievable as AZ didn’t stockpile the 60mln doses but rather sold them?

They took our Jaaabs.

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

THEY’RE selling at barely more than cost! Unlike the rest who are charging 20 times the price!

Most of what we have is speculation. However, what we do know is the EU funded the R&D as well as purchasing 300 Million doses with the option of another 100 Million doses to the tune of over a BILLION Euro. The approval by the EMA is neither here nor there.....the EU paid for these vaccines.

Now, it would seem that the EU have reason to believe that AZ have allocated doses to other countries which had been ear marked for the EU. Why would they do this? I suspect because AZ were getting a premium for those doses by the buyers. The EU are generally over cautious and to come out and make the type of statement linked in this thread tells me that they are pretty sure AZ are pulling a fast one.

...Ghost... wrote: »

Most of what we have is speculation. However, what we do know is the EU funded the R&D as well as purchasing 300 Million doses with the option of another 100 Million doses to the tune of over a Hundred BILLION Euro. The approval by the EMA is neither here nor there.....the EU paid for these vaccines.

Now, it would seem that the EU have reason to believe that AZ have allocated doses to other countries which had been ear marked for the EU. Why would they do this? I suspect because AZ were getting a premium for those doses by the buyers. The EU are generally over cautious and to come out and make the type of statement linked in this thread tells me that they are pretty sure AZ are pulling a fast one.

They didn’t find the R&D they part funded is all. That’s besides the point unless the publish the contract that stipulates that funding directly allocated them X vaccinations.

So you believe everything a politician says! Wow, ok then crack on so!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Looks to me the british have pulled a quick one and pressed astra to supply them first


That type underhand scheming is pretty much exactly,what id expect from the british tory party

Any proof or just more of the same old same old?

fly_agaric wrote: »

What about the old saw "the dose makes the poison?"

What about the dosing and amendments to it have been out there for a while now.

On this forum, no...
It's always 13 o'clock on the 31st of September and the EUs fault!

Must have missed that thread.....or is just tonight there’s a lot of blindness?

Van.Bosch wrote: »

What if the contract said, if we approve at any stage in January, you will have 60,000,000 doses available in February?

Then in this scenario AZ says, if you approve in Feb we can provide 60% less due to production delays. Then the EU thinks the production delays while valid are not the full story and the contract terms both parties agreed to weren’t achievable as AZ didn’t stockpile the 60mln doses but rather sold them?

I'm not aware of any contract that can be tied down to guess work, maybe"s, maybe not"s?