What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

I see the Nicola Sturgeon is saying that she will publish confidential vaccine procurement details against the wishes of Westminister.

Relevant to AZ?

Call me Al wrote: »

Is that reported anywhere other than that Daily Mail article.
Because it gets one line in the whole thing.
Theres no context given.
The rest is all about the UK rollout, how extensive it is, and how cunning their government has been.

I saw her saying it on youtube. about 2 mins in



After that,I googled it and saw an article from 2 weeks back where she disclosed that they had been told to keep supply details secret and the article at the time more or less said that it was so that other countries did not get annoyed.


I posted the link over on the Brexit thread

I am curious about how the commissions vaccine acquisition program are going to feel about this news.

Great news Novaxax stage 3 trial is complete and has shown to be nearly as effective as the Pfizer jab, and will hopefully have UK authorization quickly

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-vaccines-novavax-idUSKBN29X2WU

Great news, the UK ordered 60 million doses back in August.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0814/1159161-uk-to-buy-60-million-doses-of-novavax-vaccine/

I wonder what deals the Commission has done, wouldn't be like them to be slow on a promising vaccine.

Oh wait the latest news article, they are still negotiating on January the 11th, nothing about them signing a deal, thats weird isn't it? People have kept telling me the commission isn't slow of the mark.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccines-exclus/exclusive-eu-seeks-more-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-eyes-deals-with-valneva-novavax-idUKKBN29G27A








https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccines-exclus/exclusive-eu-seeks-more-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-eyes-deals-with-valneva-novavax-idUKKBN29G27A

In addition to the above post.

Considering the fact that the EU has just brought in measures to potentially block the export of vaccine from the EU and as far as I am aware Novaxax bought up production capacity in Europe.

Does it make sense for Novaxax to even sign a contract with the Commission considering they have already signed deals to supply United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, India, and South Korea.
If they sign a contract this will happen

the Commission said it will seek to impose a mechanism on Friday by which EU countries will be able to block vaccine exports if the EU's own purchase orders have not yet been filled.

Melanchthon wrote: »

Well considering there has been heated argument that the Commission hasn't unnecessarily slowed the process down this is a example thats happening right now, with the added issue of the export dilemma.

Why would you consider an export ban a dilemma? You've accused the EU of being slow to react, banning exports of vaccines would speed up delivery. I would have thought you would rejoice at the idea?

Melanchthon wrote: »

Because in this case, the company has production capacity in the EU as far as I know (they also have some UK production capacity).

They have orders from multiple countries (no idea of who is being supplied from where)

Its not a straight export ban, its a ban on exports if the EU order has not been fulfilled.

They haven't signed an order with the Commission yet (unless it hasn't been reported or I missed it).

If they sign a contract with the Commission now, they could end up in a situation where they have to stop delivery of orders that came in months ago because they might be blocked from export.

So if the EU hasn't got it's contractually agreed order by it's due date they'll block exports. That actually sounds alright to me, why would you have a problem with it?

sameoldname wrote: »

So if the EU hasn't got it's contractually agreed order by it's due date they'll block exports. That actually sounds alright to me, why would you have a problem with it?

Sounds like a plan.What would happen if the Pfizer factory burnt down tonight or had major production delays ? What then ?

Bambi wrote: »

Spite, probably, seems to be a thing with her.

Take a look into her shenanigans with Alex Salmonds reputation

If they have nothing to hide sure then why not be transparent and publish the details

Melanchthon wrote: »

Because once the factory spins up production again, the company will go, good stuff thank god its up and running again we have to fill the order for Xstan they placed that order back in the autumn, and then the EU can say, if you do this your likely to miss our production order if you do that, sorry doesn't matter when its signed no export for you!

They could do that. Of course, they could also do what any sensible entity would do and realise that there was a genuine production problem and accept a revised delivery schedule. I wonder which would be more likely?

sameoldname wrote: »

So if the EU hasn't got it's contractually agreed order by it's due date they'll block exports. That actually sounds alright to me, why would you have a problem with it?

Isn’t that what Trump wanted to do?

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

They haven't brought in regulations blocking anything. They're brought in a regulation monitoring exports.

As far as I understand it thats olld news, I think that is what they were talking about yesterday. This landed today

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-brandishes-export-ban-to-claim-dibs-on-vaccine-astrazeneca-pfizer/

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

The USA will likely be implementing the Defence Production Act and already has comprehensive rules and monitoring of exports like that.

https://traliance.com/exporting-coronavirus-vaccine/

Difference is the USA was pretty open about this, thats why countries like Canada placed orders with EU plants for their vaccine, not the plants just across the border.

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think the EU are talking about restrictions on specific companies who don't fulfill their orders - no?


If AZ doesn't have their promised delivery ready they they won't be able to ship off to Canada, but if Pfizer are on schedule, they will be allowed to.


Canada etc. would just have to be careful who the sign the contracts with.

Or as I am talking about, the company has to be careful about signing a contract with the EU, because as I am reading it, if Novavax decides to finalize the deal they are negotiating with the EU, if they sign a contract and there is a delay with the EU contract they are likely to impound orders placed well before the EU's order.

Additionally keeping in mind that they have already brought in harder measures , these measures have been raised.

It was not immediately clear what further development might trigger such a move, but officials said that Council legal advisers believed the powers, in Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, could be used to force vaccine-makers to share their patents, or other licenses, and take other steps to ramp up production of the desperately sought-after vaccines.

https://www.politico.eu/article/charles-michel-says-eu-could-invoke-urgent-measures-response-coronavirus-vaccine-shortfall/

as far as I know Novaxa is a for profit production so risk of being forced to share their IP is a big deal

Melanchthon wrote: »

In addition to the above post.

Considering the fact that the EU has just brought in measures to potentially block the export of vaccine from the EU and as far as I am aware Novaxax bought up production capacity in Europe.

Does it make sense for Novaxax to even sign a contract with the Commission considering they have already signed deals to supply United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, India, and South Korea.
If they sign a contract this will happen

Isn't this essentially what happened with AZ? They signed a contract with UK, then signed a contract with EU but later said* that production from UK plants is for UK despite their contract with EU also naming UK plants for production. If, as AZ say, the EU is down the list for receiving supply, they shouldn't have signed up to giving them 100m doses by end of Q1 2021. They are breaching contract, signed in bad faith or both.

So others have decided after the fact that production in one region is firstly to meet obligations in that region, and that is being put down to EU incompetence, but the EU shouldn't now do the same thing with their pre-existing deals?

Obviously in any deal now with Novaxax, Novaxax will have to clearly set out the situation in relation their other contracts and if they contain limits on exporting product, just like AZ should have done. The EU would then have to decide then how that fits in with their overall vaccination plans and whether to sign up, but that has to be with full knowledge of the situation.

* The direct quote from their CEO is;

As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is. In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe, but only later. But we're moving very quickly, the supply in the UK is very rapid. The government is vaccinating 2.5 million people a week, about 500,000 a day, our vaccine supply is growing quickly. As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough.

Melanchthon wrote: »

Difference is the USA was pretty open about this, thats why countries like Canada placed orders with EU plants for their vaccine, not the plants just across the border.

First, I don't agree with interfering with activities of companies that have been honest and fair in all their dealings with the EU.

Given what has happened with AstraZeneca and how it all came out so late and appears to have blindsided the EU completely, it would be sensible of the EU to have a better knowledge of exactly what is going on in the EU facilities of the manufacturers we have provided large amounts of money to.
It's the least I'd expect. Probably in hindsight, given how much the whole world is screaming for these vaccines and the massive pressures this crisis places on the companies and governments (and on the EU too of course), it should have been done before now.
The money was not handed over on a completely selfless basis for benefit of global health, the main goal of the plan was to secure supplies of vaccines for the EU population and after that neighbouring countries/allies etc.

You have criticised the EU, and especially the Commission (and its collective plan) for being slow in making purchase agreements.
You have criticised the EU (EMA) for not doing emergency/fast track approval of vaccines like the UK.

You have also pushed alternative policies for Ireland (that presumably you think are a better bet than EU procurement plan, maybe things the EU should have done) that would be unethical at best, downright dangerous and irresponsible at worst...see below.

Melanchthon wrote:

Nah that's disingenuously simplifying the argument.

The argument about precedence and what's in the contract is specifically about Astra Zeneca' Europe/UK supply chain.

We could for example buy Sputnik, we could buy the Chinese vaccines (not sure this is a good idea depending of effectiveness but it could be done).
We could send Leo Varadkar over to the Serum Institute in India with a brief case full of cash and a promise of significant investment in their production if they place a priority order that's relatively small for them.
We could attempt the Israeli thing and what I think the gulf states are doing which is basically throwing money around.

We could approach the UK and ask if their (possible not confirmed) exclusivity for 100 million doses of internal Astra Zeneca supply results in a calculated excess that in aid of an all Ireland /British isles Covid-19 areas could we pretty please have some, e.g if UK production capacity exceeds ability of UK to deliver doses into arms each month/week could Ireland buy the excess.


For the record I don't think anything but Sputnik or Sinopharm is that workable now, this probably would have worked a few months ago though.

Now you are criticising the EU (again) for moving towards a more "real politik" and harder edged approach to the drug companies given it seems to believe it has been pissed on by AZ and told it was raining afterwards.
It's a lot less machiavellian and downright nasty than bribing manufacturers to snipe vaccines out from under the noses of poorer countries by sending off ministers with bundles of money.

You are a bit inconsistent here.

mick087 wrote: »

You might find these posts tiresome i on the other hand don't. I find them quite refreshing interesting and factual.

You're still believing in falsehoods, because you obviously chose to, since this first arose earlier this week.