What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

26-01-2021 01:24PM

greyday wrote: »

A few things you dont understand, all contracts will have contingencies within them to deal with unforseen circumstances, the EU delayed signing a contract for an experimental vaccine which was not 100% guaranteed to work, a whole host of other Countries had signed contracts for this experimental vaccine on the chance that it would work but did so before the EU, any manufacturing issues that arises put the EU further back as they delayed their signing, hope you understand the basic common sense rather than have to go back to your house building contract analogy for 5 year olds, you really should know FIFO is built into most contracts/agreements by now, think of it this way, if the USA order a billion doses for delivery in First Quarter of 2021 in July 2020 and EU orders a billion doses for delivery in first quarter 2021 in october 2020, who do you think will get the first billion does if there are delays in production? Do you really think a contract would be signed by a manufacturer that guaranteed something they had not already made to a buyer without including caveats?

This is evidence free. The US didn't pay more for the vaccines and didn't pay in July 2020, the EU clearly paid ahead of time for them. This is why they are now demanding the vaccines. That they paid for.

It is also clear that AZ are lying - they claim to have production problems but are exporting to unnamed countries. The EU clearly doesn't believe them.

mick087 · 26-01-2021 01:25PM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

When the dust I settled with AZ I think it will be very obvious that the government had no plan B. They had to dragged kicking and screaming into the green lighting mask wearing in public and now the border and quarantine thing like a disgraced TD from the Dail.

No elected government who is a member state of the EU organization would be at fault.

The fault is that of the EU organization itsellf.
My guess is they gambled during the negotiations, on the we are the EU do as we say attitude. But during these negotiations other countries was buying so are in line first.

emmalynn19 · 26-01-2021 01:27PM

Aegir wrote: »

or maybe they just accepted a delivery schedule based on reasonable endeavors and when it became clear those reasonable endeavours were not going to suit them and the Pharma companies were going to do what they had said they would do all along and honour contracts in the order they were signed, they started throwing their weight around.

Thats not how contracts work.

26-01-2021 01:28PM

Aegir wrote: »

or maybe they just accepted a delivery schedule based on reasonable endeavors and when it became clear those reasonable endeavours were not going to suit them and the Pharma companies were going to do what they had said they would do all along and honour contracts in the order they were signed, they started throwing their weight around.

Or maybe the moon is made of cheese. The facts of the case are clear. The EU paid for vaccines it is not getting. How do you know what the order of contacts were signed in anyway? Is there some Brexit website with made up facts out there because you are all singing from he same sheet here.

If AZ were fulfilling contracts in the order that the signed the EU would have no cause foe concern. But clearly they are concerned, and are demanding that AZ fulfilled its obligations.

There is no evidence that other countries have previous contractural agreements. if you can find that evidence, produce it.

Leroy42 · 26-01-2021 01:28PM

Aegir wrote: »

or maybe they just accepted a delivery schedule based on reasonable endeavors and when it became clear those reasonable endeavours were not going to suit them and the Pharma companies were going to do what they had said they would do all along and honour contracts in the order they were signed, they started throwing their weight around.

Where are you getting this idea that the order of signing contracts has any implications on the legality of the contract?

AZ signed the EU contract in full knowledge of the other contracts, they signed it anyway. They agreed that they would meet the EU requirements, knowing they had other commitments.

It is not for the EU to decide if AZ can meet their commitments.

But the EU paid for the contract up front to agree the deal.

26-01-2021 01:29PM

mick087 wrote: »

No elected government who is a member state of the EU organization would be at fault.

The fault is that of the EU organization itsellf.
My guess is they gambled during the negotiations, on the we are the EU do as we say attitude. But during these negotiations other countries was buying so are in line first.

Your "guess" is worthless. If that were the case then AZ would say it, and wouldn't hide behind fake claims of production issues. Nor would the EU have a case. To prove it though you have to produce evidence.

mick087 · 26-01-2021 01:31PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think that one thing that should also be remembered, for those people who would be pushing for regular steps to be ignored so that something could be approved earlier.

The AZ vaccine was found to be more effective when given in two doses.

How was that discovered? Who came up with that idea?

Answer - nobody did. They made a mess up in one of the trials. Even though it actually led to an accidentally beneficial discovery, it wouldn't exactly inspire overall confidence in their procedures.

Penicillin was discovered by accident
I belive the chap who discovered it was often described as a careless lab technician.

Leroy42 · 26-01-2021 01:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Your "guess" is worthless. If that were the case then AZ would say it, and wouldn't hide behind fake claims of production issues. Nor would the EU have a case. To prove it though you have to produce evidence.

Exactly. AZ initially said it was due to production issues. The EU asked why the EU seemed to be the only ones getting hit by this production issues.

It is only now that people are making the spurious claims about timing of contracts etc.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 26-01-2021 01:32PM

emmalynn19 wrote: »

So have AZ actually manufactured the stockpile of vaccines they were paid for by the EU or not? Or did they manufacture them and sell them elsewhere? That seems to be the crux of the matter.

Personally I would consider either answer to be unacceptable.

cnocbui · 26-01-2021 01:32PM

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

The issue with your hypothetical is that AS have already informed Australia that their initial delivery will be short, due to the exact same reasons the EU deliveries will.

I don't think Australia is too worried about that, as it looks like it might be a bit of a dud vaccine:

Scientists call for pause on AstraZeneca vaccine rollout

By Liam Mannix and Aisha Dow
January 12, 2021 — 11.45pm

The Australian and New Zealand Society for Immunology says the federal government should immediately pause the planned rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine because it may not be effective enough to generate herd immunity.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/scientists-call-for-pause-on-astrazeneca-vaccine-rollout-20210112-p56tjt.html

intellectual dosser · 26-01-2021 01:34PM

While the EU should demand full transparency, and take its next €900m elsewhere, the threat of meddling with free markets puts everyone in an uncomfortable position. It sets a dangerous precedent for everyone.

26-01-2021 01:34PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly. AZ initially said it was due to production issues. The EU asked why the EU seemed to be the only ones getting hit by this production issues.

It is only now that people are making the spurious claims about timing of contracts etc.

Not that contracts work that way anyway. They aren't first come first served. If you promise 100M units of something in Q1 your other promises have no bearing on that. Not that that looks like it is the case here.

emmalynn19 · 26-01-2021 01:35PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Personally I would consider either answer to be unacceptable.

If I was to guess Id say they produced the vaccines, then flogged them to the Brits thinking they'd have enough time to replenish stocks before the EMA approved them, then ran into manufacturing issues in Belgium.

26-01-2021 01:37PM

intellectual dosser wrote: »

While the EU should demand full transparency, and take its next €900m elsewhere, the threat of meddling with free markets puts everyone in an uncomfortable position. It sets a dangerous precedent for everyone.

I doubt the EU care too much about an uncomfortable postition, given the seriousness of the situation (lives are literally at stake) and the level of power the EU as a bloc has.

Larbre34 · 26-01-2021 01:39PM

With the amount of public money in their product, they should be stripped of the formula and it should be presented in open source to any other manufacturer in the field for production assessment. Animal products, industrial products, other bio/pharma makers, anyone.

intellectual dosser · 26-01-2021 01:40PM

AdamD wrote: »

I doubt the EU care too much about an uncomfortable postition, given the seriousness of the situation (lives are literally at stake) and the level of power the EU as a bloc has.

I know that I care, it sets a precedent that in future the EU can play around with markets as it feels.

26-01-2021 01:40PM

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I know that I care, it sets a precedent that in future the EU can play around with markets as it feels.

id sooner be safe and healthy,than worry about free markets tbh

26-01-2021 01:44PM

intellectual dosser wrote: »

While the EU should demand full transparency, and take its next €900m elsewhere, the threat of meddling with free markets puts everyone in an uncomfortable position. It sets a dangerous precedent for everyone.

Imposing export controls is common. The US does it all the time, for national security, on strategic tech exports, and other reasons.

political analyst · 26-01-2021 01:45PM

Cerveza wrote: »

China has some involvement too.

But China has its own vaccines, doesn't it?

fly_agaric · 26-01-2021 01:45PM

intellectual dosser wrote: »

While the EU should demand full transparency, and take its next €900m elsewhere, the threat of meddling with free markets puts everyone in an uncomfortable position. It sets a dangerous precedent for everyone.

I don't know, you can't allow companies to get away with such behaviour (if they [ie AstraZeneca] have somehow gypped the EU + its member states).

It demonstrates to the others in the market that there will be consequences for some business decisions.

Wouldn't agree with the EU "meddling" with any other companies or their operations though.

26-01-2021 01:51PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Where are you getting this idea that the order of signing contracts has any implications on the legality of the contract?

AZ signed the EU contract in full knowledge of the other contracts, they signed it anyway. They agreed that they would meet the EU requirements, knowing they had other commitments.

It is not for the EU to decide if AZ can meet their commitments.

But the EU paid for the contract up front to agree the deal.

can you point me to the part of the contract that details the delivery schedule?

26-01-2021 01:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not that contracts work that way anyway. They aren't first come first served. If you promise 100M units of something in Q1 your other promises have no bearing on that. Not that that looks like it is the case here.

as none of us have seen the contract, we don't know how it works

emmalynn19 · 26-01-2021 01:55PM

Aegir wrote: »

as none of us have seen the contract, we don't know how it works

Just stop.

Inquitus · 26-01-2021 01:55PM

It seems the AZ Vaccine has a few questions over it, none have been properly substantiated, but there are questions on its efficacy for over 65's. Also there are other questions about the UK strategy of holding off on the 2nd vaccine and what impact that also has on efficacy. We'll have to wait to see how this plays out, but it is possible the UK is vaccinating its way not out of a hole, but into one, time will tell!

26-01-2021 01:56PM

emmalynn19 wrote: »

Just stop.

stop what? talking sense?

FileNotFound · 26-01-2021 01:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Imposing export controls is common. The US does it all the time, for national security, on strategic tech exports, and other reasons.

Biden is literally planning to do that - its also the reason EU demands all EU sold Drugs are made/QC tested in the EU.

Besides it is my simple understanding that there was no binding contract until the EU issued AZ with an MIA for their vaccine.

So until that is done I guess AZ do what they do. I imagine that once approval is given AZ will magic up enough to appease the EU.

FileNotFound · 26-01-2021 01:59PM

Aegir wrote: »

as none of us have seen the contract, we don't know how it works

In Pharma no contract is valid until Market Authorisation is given

Not sure why that would have changed for this vaccine.

So not sure all this contract chat really means anything to be fair.

is_that_so · 26-01-2021 01:59PM

FileNotFound wrote: »

Biden is literally planning to do that - its also the reason EU demands all EU sold Drugs are made/QC tested in the EU.

Besides it is my simple understanding that there was no binding contract until the EU issued AZ with an MIA for their vaccine.

So until that is done I guess AZ do what they do. I imagine that once approval is given AZ will magic up enough to appease the EU.

That gives them 3 days!

emmalynn19 · 26-01-2021 02:00PM

Aegir wrote: »

stop what? talking sense?

Ignore list for you.

VinLieger · 26-01-2021 02:01PM

FileNotFound wrote: »

In Pharma no contract is valid until Market Authorisation is given

Not sure why that would have changed for this vaccine.

So not sure all this contract chat really means anything to be fair.

Well thats absolute bo11ox if a contract has been signed then its valid.

You might talking about the contract as regards efficacy of the drug which would be part of the contract itself.

But a contract regarding supply would absolutely be valid.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments