What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

monkeybutter · 28-01-2021 03:28PM

Aegir wrote: »

you have a very "Odd" sense of humour.:rolleyes:

this from a man who still hasn't been given a peek at the eu or uk contract with AZ

now that is hilarious

the poster was trolling, brand new poster, with what can only be described as a hilarious made up post

monkeybutter · 28-01-2021 03:29PM

Libb1964 wrote: »

I can't tell you exactly how the system works, but I can tell you she lives in Coton Cambridge, uses Comberton gp surgery and the surgery sent her to Royston.
She had previously been told she could get a vaccination in Stevenage which was even more ridiculous!!

She didn't take them up on the offer

is that a local shop for local people

9db3xj7z41fs5u · 28-01-2021 03:33PM

monkeybutter wrote: »

did you? he admits he knows didly about it at the start

its in the spectator

what more do you need

What's more, good reporting offers an impartial and dispassionate recounting of the facts.

I don't think that the poster you responded to (Half and Half) seems to cop the concept of bias and why this might influence the reporting. He ought to look at the political affiliations, business interests, personal interests, etc of the barrister before regurgitating the facts. In fact, in order to really understand the reasoning, he ought to go to the primary sources that the judgment is based on (but no contract).

And the poster keeps shouting down people with a different argument, using passive aggressive insults. He makes an assumption that the people that he is speaking to are complete morons and ill-informed. I kept responding to him, because these type of posters will tear apart other posters with no basis, and then use the silence of the other poster as vindication that he is correct.

Libb1964 · 28-01-2021 03:34PM

monkeybutter wrote: »

is that a local shop for local people

I admit I don't post much, but I'm not brand new,Im a PUP recipient.

Look on Google maps

Cole · 28-01-2021 03:34PM

Just watching an interview with a professor of public health (David Taylor) from UCL on the BBC now. Admits he doesn't know all the ins and outs of the EU/Astrazeneca dispute, but goes on to give (political) opinions about the whole thing. In summary...EU are the baddies, Oxford Astrazeneca are amazing and we shouldn't be political about Covid-19:rolleyes:

9db3xj7z41fs5u · 28-01-2021 03:34PM

Melanchthon wrote: »

F-ck if you can get me off sitting on my hole on the pup because industry is 90% shutdown I'd be really really happily stop posting on this thread so much!

I am on annual leave and cannot travel to see my family. That is my excuse for being on this forum during working hours.

HalfAndHalf · 28-01-2021 03:40PM

monkeybutter wrote: »

did you? he admits he knows didly about it at the start

its in the spectator

what more do you need

Yes I did, you clearly didn’t seeing as ‘at the start’ the BARRISTER states:

‘Contract law is an area of law I know well. And it is not a political comment to say the commissioner is wrong’

Ah so you’re one of those who only believes the media outlet that agrees with you’re theories. I see. That’s why you didn’t read the article.

28-01-2021 03:44PM

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Yes I did, you clearly didn’t seeing as ‘at the start’ the BARRISTER states:

‘Contract law is an area of law I know well. And it is not a political comment to say the commissioner is wrong’

Ah so you’re one of those who only believes the media outlet that agrees with you’re theories. I see. That’s why you didn’t read the article.

This is meaningless unless he has seen the contract between the EU and AZ.

I'm amazed at people who are desperate to go shilling for a pharma company, when we still do not have all the facts.

mick087 · 28-01-2021 03:44PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

You appeared to express a preference for the vaccine rollout to be done on a coordinated global basis. no?
Well you seem to know what i already said.

But you also appear to have a philosophical objection to the principle of it being coordinated on an EU-wide basis instead of a per-country basis.
If you disagree with anything i have said then please feel free to give your philosophical response on the subject.

I'm not taking the piss.

Really?

There is a concept of transitivity in logic and it seems to me that your argument appears to violate that.
Maybe keep hypothetical as you say being the reason my argument appears to violate the concept of transitivity in logic to you.

HalfAndHalf · 28-01-2021 03:45PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

This is meaningless unless he has seen the contract between the EU and AZ.

I'm amazed at people who are desperate to go shilling for a pharma company, when we still do not have all the facts.

His comments are based on a vaccine supply contract published by the EU.

These comments are therefore more informed than anyone else’s on here so far.

The same can be said for those going shilling for the EU when we still do not know the facts.

9db3xj7z41fs5u · 28-01-2021 03:46PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

This is meaningless unless he has seen the contract between the EU and AZ.

I'm amazed at people who are desperate to go shilling for a pharma company, when we still do not have all the facts.

He states in the article himself that he has not seen it

28-01-2021 03:47PM

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

His comments are based on a vaccine supply contract published by the EU.

These comments are therefore more informed than anyone else’s on here so far.

It's not based on the Astrazeneca contract, which is all that's relevant here.

Nitrogan · 28-01-2021 03:48PM

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

His comments are based on a vaccine supply contract published by the EU.

These comments are therefore more informed than anyone else’s on here so far.

The same can be said for those going shilling for the EU when we still do not know the facts.

Have you got a link for that contract?

They were saying they couldn't publish it without AZ's approval, must have been leaked if you guys have seen it.

Wolf359f · 28-01-2021 03:51PM

Nitrogan wrote: »

Have you got a link for that contract?

They were saying they couldn't publish it without AZ's approval, must have been leaked if you guys have seen it.

I think I just heard on sky news that AZ have agreed to publish the contract.

Hurrache · 28-01-2021 03:55PM

brickster69 wrote: »

Interesting article in the Spectator

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-vaccine-row-shows-the-eu-doesn-t-understand-contract-law

It's a glossy version of the Telegraph, works along the same editorial lines and has little to offer.

HalfAndHalf · 28-01-2021 03:55PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's not based on the Astrazeneca contract, which is all that's relevant here.

Agreed, however it is a vaccine supply contract published by the EU which you can educate a guess at being at least reasonably similar. And if so then a barrister well verses in contract law points to parts that will cover AZ.

It’s something to at least discuss isn’t it?

Or shall this thread fall silent until all the facts are released, the trial is over and everyone already knows the outcome?

Melanchthon · 28-01-2021 03:58PM

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-slams-astrazeneca-but-fails-in-push-for-vaccine-stella-kyriakides-pascal-soriot/

So nothing concrete came from the meeting? I wonder does this mean that Astra Zeneca are fairly sure of themselves.

emmalynn19 · 28-01-2021 03:59PM

Melanchthon wrote: »

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-slams-astrazeneca-but-fails-in-push-for-vaccine-stella-kyriakides-pascal-soriot/

So nothing concrete came from the meeting? I wonder does this mean that Astra Zeneca are fairly sure of themselves.

They could simply publish the contract as the EU has requested if they were so sure of themselves and put this all to bed.

9db3xj7z41fs5u · 28-01-2021 04:01PM

Melanchthon wrote: »

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-slams-astrazeneca-but-fails-in-push-for-vaccine-stella-kyriakides-pascal-soriot/

So nothing concrete came from the meeting? I wonder does this mean that Astra Zeneca are fairly sure of themselves.

Or they are trying to put it on the long finger in the hope that the anger will die down.

If AZ are in the right, then all they have to do is to publish the contract. Though, regardless of the legalese, it won't mitigate the fact that they took money and overpromised. We could have taken that money elsewhere if we knew that there would be such a hold-up

Mark1916 · 28-01-2021 04:05PM

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/astra-zeneca-will-mehr-impfstoff-liefern-17169846.html

Based on a loose translation, looks like there might be some white smoke between the EU and AstraZeneca “originally there was a volume of 80M for the first quarter, at the weekend the company reduced this to 31M”

“It is not likely we will end up with 80M but it should be significantly more than 31M”

AlmightyCushion · 28-01-2021 04:13PM

emmalynn19 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1354728336329744385

Some eye-opening stuff in this twitter thread

If that is true, then it looks like the EU are in the right here. They use the production facilities that the EU has provided funding for to ramp up production for the UK and at the same time tells the EU it is reducing the amount it will provide them with. That isn't right.

emmalynn19 · 28-01-2021 04:15PM

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If that is true, then it looks like the EU are in the right here. They use the production facilities that the EU has provided funding for to ramp up production for the UK and at the same time tells the EU it is reducing the amount it will provide them with. That isn't right.

Yes it does. There are half a dozen posters banging up editorial links from the Telegraph, Spectator and Nigel Farage to contradict it for some reason.

HalfAndHalf · 28-01-2021 04:19PM

emmalynn19 wrote: »

Yes it does. There are half a dozen posters banging up editorial links from the Telegraph, Spectator and Nigel Farage to contradict it for some reason.

Both sides of the argument are ‘if this is true’ nobody other than the EC and AZ know the truth.

As for comments saying why don’t AZ just publish the contract, what business is going to blow away an NDA and publish a contract regardless of the other side saying so it. You may as well declare bankruptcy now as no-one would touch you ever again!

Mitch Connor · 28-01-2021 04:21PM

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Both sides of the argument are ‘if this is true’ nobody other than the EC and AZ know the truth.

As for comments saying why don’t AZ just publish the contract, what business is going to blow away an NDA and publish a contract regardless of the other side saying so it. You may as well declare bankruptcy now as no-one would touch you ever again!

The EU has said they can publish the contract. EU have said they'll wave NDA on it, so if AZ want to do the same they can publish.

So.... EU have given permission. AZ haven't published.

Donald Trump · 28-01-2021 04:23PM

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Both sides of the argument are ‘if this is true’ nobody other than the EC and AZ know the truth.

As for comments saying why don’t AZ just publish the contract, what business is going to blow away an NDA and publish a contract regardless of the other side saying so it. You may as well declare bankruptcy now as no-one would touch you ever again!

What? The other side requested them to do it.

I think it would be more of a problem if they refuse to do it to be fair. Who would want to do business with a company that could spread (what the contractual counterparty claims is) lies and then hides behind an NDA when asked to publish the actual facts?

It's not as if there would be any commercially sensitive factors here now is there? It's a unique scenario. Nobody else is producing this vaccine (mainly because they managed to get exclusive rights against the wishes and intentions of those that did the work developing it!).

manutd83 · 28-01-2021 04:25PM

Germans apparently saying this jab now should not be given to over 65s,top headline on sky news

HalfAndHalf · 28-01-2021 04:26PM

So you’d spend billions with a company who are known to break NDAs regardless of the circumstances? Wow!

emmalynn19 · 28-01-2021 04:27PM

manutd83 wrote: »

Germans apparently saying this jab now should not be given to over 65s,top headline on sky news

The Brits have already given it to millions of over 65s...

Mitch Connor · 28-01-2021 04:28PM

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

So you’d spend billions with a company who are known to break NDAs regardless of the circumstances? Wow!

what are you talking about?

Mitch Connor · 28-01-2021 04:30PM

manutd83 wrote: »

Germans apparently saying this jab now should not be given to over 65s,top headline on sky news

they aren;t saying it shouldn't be. or at least not how i read your comment.

they are saying they won't approve it for over 65s at this time becuase there is insufficient data for that cohort to approve.

They can come back and approve it for over 65s when more data is available.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments