What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

monkeybutter · 31-01-2021 09:48PM

Remember the way all the nordies come down to the south to claim the dole...

McGiver · 31-01-2021 09:52PM

Aegir wrote: »

you literally quoted a poster who gave it.

Officially, it is anyone who dies in any setting within 28 days of a positive test.

I don't think all settings are included and probable Covid is also not included in the UK. That means France and Belgium have the most broad criteria, not directly comparable

Please provide a link to the detailed UK criteria. Link to an official government or medical body website.

I provided a link to the ECDC outlining the criteria.

TobyHolmes · 31-01-2021 09:57PM

monkeybutter wrote: »

Remember the way all the nordies come down to the south to claim the dole...

no..... whats ur point? what ru implying?

ThePanjandrum · 31-01-2021 09:58PM

mista11 wrote: »

The extra 9 million was exactly what astrazenca said they would get on Friday which the commision rejected at that time

Expanding the manufacturing capcity is Astrazenca fufilling the "best endevours clause" in the contact

Lets hope they can turn something around in the short term and get us more vaccines

Expanding manufacturing might well be the result of the EU having identified potential manufacturers to produce vaccine on behalf of AstraZeneca. See Article 5.4 of the APA:

If AstraZeneca is unable to deliver on its intention to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses and/or Optional Doses under this Agreement in the EU, the Commission or the Participating Member States may present to AstraZeneca, CMOs within the EU capable of manufacturing the Vaccine Doses, and AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to contract with such proposed CMOs to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU.

31-01-2021 10:11PM

McGiver wrote: »

I don't think all settings are included and probable Covid is also not included in the UK. That means France and Belgium have the most broad criteria, not directly comparable

Please provide a link to the detailed UK criteria. Link to an official government or medical body website.

I provided a link to the ECDC outlining the criteria.

All settings are included.

The three figures published are those that have does within 28 days of taking a test. Of any cause whatsoever. This figure comes from the four countries and is compiled in to a total figure by the U.K. givernmwnt.

The the statistics offices also compile the number of people who dies and the death cert mentions Covid 19.

They also publish a figure that compares the annual rate of death versus the five year average.

That is about as comprehensive as you can get.

downcow · 31-01-2021 10:16PM

I know of several cases locally of people who have had the vaccine testing positive for covid but no symptoms or ill effects.
I am interested when vaccinated elderly die and covid has been found within 28 days, are they going down as covid deaths even though it was irrelevant to their passing?

ThePanjandrum · 31-01-2021 10:17PM

Two interesting bits from tonight's Daily Telegraph:

France and Germany threatened legal action against AstraZeneca on Sunday as they scrambled to explain their shortages in vaccine supplies and warned that any firm which favoured UK orders for the jabs would be penalised.

Britain will prioritise offering spare vaccines to Ireland once stocks are secured for the UK jab rollout, The Telegraph understands.

So this drags on ... but Germany and France are on to a loser.

downcow · 31-01-2021 10:19PM

Aegir wrote: »

All settings are included.

The three figures published are those that have does within 28 days of taking a test. Of any cause whatsoever. This figure comes from the four countries and is compiled in to a total figure by the U.K. givernmwnt.

The the statistics offices also compile the number of people who dies and the death cert mentions Covid 19.

They also publish a figure that compares the annual rate of death versus the five year average.

That is about as comprehensive as you can get.

Yes we have had car accidents and suicides here where covid has been found in system so they have gone down as covid deaths. Is this not the same in Roi?

ThePanjandrum · 31-01-2021 10:20PM

downcow wrote: »

I know of several cases locally of people who have had the vaccine testing positive for covid but no symptoms or ill effects.
I am interested when vaccinated elderly die and covid has been found within 28 days, are they going down as covid deaths even though it was irrelevant to their passing?

Yes. If you die because you've been knocked down by a car or shot then it would be a Coronavirus death if it was within 28 days of a positive test.

McGiver · 31-01-2021 10:20PM

Aegir wrote: »

Fill us all in about the mess that AZ made of the trial.

My pleasure.

AstraZeneca is being sued in the US exactly because of the mess they made with the trial.

AstraZeneca PLC was sued by a pension fund on behalf of investors who it says suffered losses because of flaws in the company’s testing of its coronavirus vaccine.For much of last year, the Cambridge, England-based pharmaceutical company was touting strong progress on the development of its traditional-style vaccine and announced that it had signed contracts to provide 400 million doses. But in November, questions emerged about the vaccine when the company released initial test results.Among other things, experts and health officials faulted the testing for a lack of data on the vaccine’s effectiveness for those 55 and older. They also raised questions about results from one trial that found the vaccine 90% effective for subjects who got a half a dose but only 62% effective for those who got the full dose

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/astrazeneca-vaccine-testing-stumble-draws-023422984.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.html

Donald Trump · 31-01-2021 10:20PM

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

There are a lot of speculative reports about speculative reports into what people are speculating about feelings they had and relatively few facts.

I think I'll be waiting for those to emerge before I make any proclamations of what happened or didn't happen.

Well there were plenty of quotes from the head of AZ etc. saying that they only had to do "best efforts" and that because UK signed first that they were going to fulfill those first

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-europe-astrazneca/astrazeneca-contract-includes-uk-as-best-effort-base-for-output-to-eu-idUSKBN29Y1E2

AstraZeneca has been making large quantities of its vaccine in Britain, but has said a contract it signed with the British government requires it to fulfil Britain’s order before it can send doses manufactured there abroad, including to the EU.

Yet when the contract was released it turns out that it contained a specific paragraph where AZ signed that they were under no obligations to any third party that might prevent the supply to the EU

So how do all the anti-EU UK/AZ fans square that circle?

McGiver · 31-01-2021 10:23PM

Aegir wrote: »

All settings are included.

The three figures published are those that have does within 28 days of taking a test. Of any cause whatsoever. This figure comes from the four countries and is compiled in to a total figure by the U.K. givernmwnt.

The the statistics offices also compile the number of people who dies and the death cert mentions Covid 19.

They also publish a figure that compares the annual rate of death versus the five year average.

That is about as comprehensive as you can get.

Yeah yeah the Telegraph said that, or was it Boris?

Please provide a link to an official body website describing the methodology. I'm asking third time.

Something simple yet clearly showing the methodology, you know just like the ECDC website.

Donald Trump · 31-01-2021 10:23PM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Yes. If you die because you've been knocked down by a car or shot then it would be a Coronavirus death if it was within 28 days of a positive test.

Yeah....but as you are probably aware, the excess deaths figure for the UK is roughly around the Covid declared deaths.

So think about that. An 80 year old person who caught the virus in April and died, but who might otherwise have died in October anyway won't be included in the excess deaths. In using excess deaths you are automatically excluding a chunk of people anyway whose demise was hastened by the virus.

Donald Trump · 31-01-2021 10:26PM

McGiver wrote: »

Yeah yeah the Telegraph said that, or was it Boris?

Please provide a link to an official body website describing the methodology. I'm asking third time.

Something simple yet clearly showing the methodology, you know just like the ECDC website.

Here is the difference between the UK figures and say Belgian.

If in Belgium, two people died in a nursing home. They tested one of those and the test was positive for corona. The next week another 8 people died of similar symptoms. Then all 10 would be listed in their covid stats.

In the UK, if they didn't test them after they died, they weren't listed as covid related deaths. Even if they had all the symptoms and had been bouncing around the place the previous week.

McGiver · 31-01-2021 10:33PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

Here is the difference between the UK figures and say Belgian.

If in Belgium, two people died in a nursing home. They tested one of those and the test was positive for corona. The next week another 8 people died of similar symptoms. Then all 10 would be listed in their covid stats.

In the UK, if they didn't test them after they died, they weren't listed as covid related deaths. Even if they had all the symptoms and had been bouncing around the place the previous week.

Exactly, French and Belgian figures are counting maximum possible. I don't think the UK methodology does.

I'm still waiting for the link of an official UK body, equivalent of the ECDC describing the UK methodology.

But I think I'm in for a long wait because it likely doesn't exist. The current UK regime isn't exactly cool with transparency

McGiver · 31-01-2021 10:34PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

So how do all the anti-EU UK/AZ fans square that circle?

They don't, they won't, this sort of Euroscepticism (that's a generous term in this case) is an irrational ideology, it doesn't need any consistency or sense. It's about feelings.

EU bad, Germany bad, UK good - pick at least 2 out of these 3 assertions and that's literally the whole of the ideology, it's really simple. No aamount of rational argumentation works on this. It's pointless.

boege · 31-01-2021 10:37PM

mista11 wrote: »

A good read that, I encourage all those posters who still belive that Astrazenca has broken the contract to read it rather that try to interperet parts of the contract themselvels (with no legal foundation)

I havent found one article online, from anyone with legal credentials, who is supporting that the EU has any case against AZ

I had a quick read of the German and french papers and there is not one article talking about taking AZ to court (there is also no mention of the article 16 debacle either which i thought was strange) All the papers are talikng about is what a mess the EU have made of supply

We had a look at this last Friday in work (we handle a lot of commercial contracts in our office). We went to the same clauses as this article points out. The contract reading does seem correct but the clause 13.1e can be considered in a different light.

Lets say I promised both you and your neighbour 5 litres of milk a day. Then one day I apologise that I can only give you one litre a day. You then find out that I am still giving your neighbour 5 litres a day. When you challenge me I tell you that the farmer where we get your milk has a lot of sick cows and the farmer that supplies your neighbours milk has no sick cows.

The EU/AZ supply agreement is not pegged to the output from any specific location or country. Clause 13.1e states there are no competing arrangements in place that would conflict with the EU-AZ contract. The contract also states that AZ have to make the vaccine in the EU but, if they need to meet their obligations, they can make it elsewhere.

In my view the 'moral argument' (different from the legal argument) is on the EU side. The EU are questioning why AZ are dropping delivery to only one customer when the EU-AZ contract suggests there is a level playing field in vaccine supply. It would seem this point was not fully clarified at the outset given the contract has a relevant provision. Perhaps this is the EU's mistake.

Finally, no company will ever absolutely guarantee product in any supply agreement (hence the rather vague definition of Reasonable Best Endeavours). It is a contract provision that any good solicitor will be asked to watch carefully. All the EU can do is point to the UK situation and ask why the UK are not affected. Its an attempt to embarrass AZ - hence why AZ upped their supply figures.

TobyHolmes · 31-01-2021 10:41PM

boege wrote: »

We had a look at this last Friday in work (we handle a lot of commercial contracts in our office). We went to the same clauses as this article points out. The contract reading does seem correct but the clause 13.1e can be considered in a different light.

Lets say I promised both you and your neighbour 5 litres of milk a day. Then one day I apologise that I can only give you one litre a day. You then find out that I am still giving your neighbour 5 litres a day. When you challenge me I tell you that the farmer where we get your milk has a lot of sick cows and the farmer that supplies your neighbours milk has no sick cows.

The EU/AZ supply agreement is not pegged to the output from any specific location or country. Clause 13.1e states there are no competing arrangements in place that would conflict with the EU-AZ contract. The contract also states that AZ have to make the vaccine in the EU but, if they need to meet their obligations, they can make it elsewhere.

In my view the 'moral argument' (different from the legal argument) is on the EU side. The EU are questioning why AZ are dropping delivery to only one customer when the EU-AZ contract suggests there is a level playing field in vaccine supply. It would seem this point was not fully clarified at the outset given the contract has a relevant provision. Perhaps this is the EU's mistake.

Finally, no company will ever absolutely guarantee product in any supply agreement (hence the rather vague definition of Reasonable Best Endeavours). It is a contract provision that any good solicitor will be asked to watch carefully. All the EU can do is point to the UK situation and ask why the UK are not affected. Its an attempt to embarrass AZ - hence why AZ upped their supply figures.

i think this is a great synopsis and is what I was arguing in terms of UK culpability (which I am of the view they have none as not their problem legally)

the moral argument - i dont think is enforceable although for political / commercial reasons AZ may need to cop on

31-01-2021 10:44PM

McGiver wrote: »

Exactly, French and Belgian figures are counting maximum possible. I don't think the UK methodology does.

I'm still waiting for the link of an official UK body, equivalent of the ECDC describing the UK methodology.

But I think I'm in for a long wait because it likely doesn't exist. The current UK regime isn't exactly cool with transparency

You’re joking right?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Just because you’re too lazy to look is doesn’t mean it is there.

TobyHolmes · 31-01-2021 10:45PM

Aegir wrote: »

You’re joking right?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Just because you’re too lazy to look is doesn’t mean it is there.

or maybe the poster didnt see it... lets not attack each other

31-01-2021 10:46PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

Here is the difference between the UK figures and say Belgian.

If in Belgium, two people died in a nursing home. They tested one of those and the test was positive for corona. The next week another 8 people died of similar symptoms. Then all 10 would be listed in their covid stats.

In the UK, if they didn't test them after they died, they weren't listed as covid related deaths. Even if they had all the symptoms and had been bouncing around the place the previous week.

The U.K. is testing 4,000,000 people per week. Anyone who has any symptoms, anyone who is admitted to hospital, pretty much everyone in a care home.

The chances of someone having Covid and the U.K. not picking it up are pretty small, but ther is a chance, hence the regular publication of the three figures.

31-01-2021 10:48PM

TobyHolmes wrote: »

or maybe the poster didnt see it... lets not attack each other

No, the poster didn’t want to see it. He actually quotes a post that shows the three different numbers used and still chose to ignore what is in front of his face.

TobyHolmes · 31-01-2021 10:48PM

Aegir wrote: »

No, the poster didn’t want to see it. He actually quotes a post that shows the three different numbers used and still chose to ignore what is in front of his face.

ok

ThePanjandrum · 31-01-2021 11:03PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yet when the contract was released it turns out that it contained a specific paragraph where AZ signed that they were under no obligations to any third party that might prevent the supply to the EU

So how do all the anti-EU UK/AZ fans square that circle?

The EU signed a contract with AstraZeneca AB, the UK with AstraZeneca GB.

They are different companies, neither speaks on behalf of the other.

Donald Trump · 31-01-2021 11:04PM

Aegir wrote: »

The U.K. is testing 4,000,000 people per week. Anyone who has any symptoms, anyone who is admitted to hospital, pretty much everyone in a care home.

The chances of someone having Covid and the U.K. not picking it up are pretty small, but ther is a chance, hence the regular publication of the three figures.

Why is the infection rate in the UK only something like 1.4x the infection rate in Ireland .... but the mortality rate is something like 2.5x ?

runawaybishop · 31-01-2021 11:08PM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Yes. If you die because you've been knocked down by a car or shot then it would be a Coronavirus death if it was within 28 days of a positive test.

That is not what we do. Covid must be a contributor to the death.

McGiver · 31-01-2021 11:09PM

Aegir wrote: »

You’re joking right?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Just because you’re too lazy to look is doesn’t mean it is there.

4th time - link to the website that simply but clearly describes the methodology as the ecdc. This link doesn't.

ThePanjandrum · 31-01-2021 11:17PM

McGiver wrote: »

Exactly, French and Belgian figures are counting maximum possible. I don't think the UK methodology does.

I'm still waiting for the link of an official UK body, equivalent of the ECDC describing the UK methodology.

But I think I'm in for a long wait because it likely doesn't exist. The current UK regime isn't exactly cool with transparency

You can always look here https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths but like other sites you would have to refer to a number of different sources to get details. But that happens everywhere.

ThePanjandrum · 31-01-2021 11:19PM

runawaybishop wrote: »

That is not what we do. Covid must be a contributor to the death.

I disagree, but feel free to provide evidence.

sameoldname · 31-01-2021 11:25PM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The EU signed a contract with AstraZeneca AB, the UK with AstraZeneca GB.

They are different companies, neither speaks on behalf of the other.

But somehow the Swedish company can sign a contact that includes UK manufacturing plants as mentioned in section 5.4? Can you actually show that these are two separate legal entities or do you want to retract that?

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments