What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

01-02-2021 06:14PM

monkeybutter wrote: »

So they could be even more flutered it looks in reality they will have a months head start right

They've covered themselves very well overall, but maybe a little short on the mRNA front. They didn't have any Moderna ordered so scrambled a deal late, no delivery until April as a consequence. They've no Curevac ordered I don't think. They ordered 40m Pfizer early enough though.

01-02-2021 06:22PM

mista11 wrote: »

`

Bit of a rant but have you read the thread? All your issues have been covered

The Uk didnt receive what they ordered either so are in the same boat as the EU, they just had a three month head start. They just arent blaming other people

LOL, if you think that's a rant you've led a fairly sheltered existence.

I never claimed they received their full order. In fact, I pointed out a discrepancy relating to their order....i.e....if they received such a small portion of what they ordered initially, how are they in a position, all of a sudden, to offer 'spares' to plucky little island? Surely, if they only got a small percentage of what they need, there wouldn't be any spare?

Some people (read: idiots) are being swayed by the pro-Tory nonsense coming from the usual sh1t-stirrers like the express, the telegraph and Nigel fcuking Farage........The fact that there are issues with the supply chain fall firmly and 100% at the feet of AZ and their failure to uphold their side of the bargain.

What we have now is some perverted version of "Schrodingers bureaucracy" where the EU are being criticised for being both too meek and not proactive enough in getting the deal signed in the first place, while simultaneously being too heavy-handed and fierce in trying to get it resolved.

There's no winning with some people. And anyone praising the UK after the sh1tshow that has gone on over there the past 3 years needs their head checked.

01-02-2021 06:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They've covered themselves very well overall, but maybe a little short on the mRNA front. They didn't have any Moderna ordered so scrambled a deal late, no delivery until April as a consequence. They've no Curevac ordered I don't think. They ordered 40m Pfizer early enough though.

Kate Bingham outlines the strategy here, which some people may find interesting. It is certainly an insight in to how much thought has gone in to this.

01-02-2021 06:25PM

NSAman wrote: »

I think we can all say, the EU F***ed up.

How?
Where?

Because it looks to me like AZ fcuked up and are giving the EU the short end of the sh1tty stick. So I'm all ears to hear what could have been done differently to protect from one side unilaterally failing to uphold their side of a legal document.

01-02-2021 06:33PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How?
Where?

Because it looks to me like AZ fcuked up and are giving the EU the short end of the sh1tty stick. So I'm all ears to hear what could have been done differently to protect from one side unilaterally failing to uphold their side of a legal document.

By insisting on waiting for Sanofi to produce the vaccines in order to half 5050 Franco German contribution. They could have left the politics out and order it all off Pfizer who could have supplied 150million more vaccines. That is how they messed up.

01-02-2021 06:46PM

Thanks for the quick response. I was more wondering how they'd fcuked up with regards to AZ, seeing as this is the AZ thread and folks are trying to lambaste the EU over their handling of the AZ vaccine.

To address your point, I'm not sure I buy into the idea that they've spread the orders around on some notion of the french getting some kudos for their efforts.
There is plenty of reasons not to have all your eggs in one basket and to maximise the chances of multiple, viable vaccines.

I mean, if they'd went all in on Pfizer or Moderna or, god forbid, AZ, and something went wrong with whoever they went with, then the same mouth-breathers would be on here giving out that they should have diversified and foreseen such events. Like I said, can't win with some.

Also, haven't Sanofi been given the green light to produce the Pfizer one while they're going back to the drawing board with their own version? Not exactly the end of the world, in the heel of the hunt.

robinph · 01-02-2021 06:49PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, they don't. It specifically says in the contract that the manufacture and rollout of the vaccine to other countries can in no way impact upon the rolout to EU countries. You either haven't been paying attention or you're refusing to see what's in front of your eyes.

What if the UK contract signed 3 months earlier also says that the supply to the UK cannot be impacted by the rollout to other countries?

I seriously doubt that line in the contract actually means what you think it does.

01-02-2021 06:50PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thanks for the quick response. I was more wondering how they'd fcuked up with regards to AZ, seeing as this is the AZ thread and folks are trying to lambaste the EU over their handling of the AZ vaccine.

To address your point, I'm not sure I buy into the idea that they've spread the orders around on some notion of the french getting some kudos for their efforts.
There is plenty of reasons not to have all your eggs in one basket and to maximise the chances of multiple, viable vaccines.

I mean, if they'd went all in on Pfizer or Moderna or, god forbid, AZ, and something went wrong with whoever they went with, then the same mouth-breathers would be on here giving out that they should have diversified and foreseen such events. Like I said, can't win with some.

Also, haven't Sanofi been given the green light to produce the Pfizer one while they're going back to the drawing board with their own version? Not exactly the end of the world, in the heel of the hunt.

They were insisting on waiting on Sanofi first. That was plan A. Only now that they have messed up have they rushed through A solution to get Sanofi to produce the Pfizer vaccine.

Donald Trump · 01-02-2021 06:58PM

Aegir wrote: »

This is completely off topic and pretty irrelevant as well.

There is no consistent and accurate way of measuring the effects of this pandemic. Not everyone that dies from Covid will be recorded, similarly, people who died with, but not from covid will be included.

Then there are the thousands of people missing operations and treatments because the health services are over loaded, or they are too wary to present themselves for treatment. Those people need to be included as well, as do anyone who unfortunately decides they can't take the isolation any more, or being locked in doors with an abusive spouse or parent.

There is no prefect way of measuring the impact, but if you only measure people who died from covid then you are missing the mark.

That is why you look at excess deaths.

UK excess deaths is far higher relative to their positive covid rates when compared to Ireland.

You said, in a talk about the vaccine, that the UK were also doing a better job of testing and keeping track of the disease. I am pointing out that the evidence does not bear that out. You brought it up. I was merely pointing out the stats to refute it

brickster69 · 01-02-2021 07:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

By insisting on waiting for Sanofi to produce the vaccines in order to half 5050 Franco German contribution. They could have left the politics out and order it all off Pfizer who could have supplied 150million more vaccines. That is how they messed up.

Bloody hell at last, bravo.

01-02-2021 07:08PM

robinph wrote: »

What if the UK contract signed 3 months earlier also says that the supply to the UK cannot be impacted by the rollout to other countries?

I seriously doubt that line in the contract actually means what you think it does.

I would bet a serious amount of money that the UK contract DOES say that. I'd nearly go so far as to wager that the two contracts are almost identical.

So that means 1 of 2 things:
1. The two contracts are in direct competition with each other and could never have both been fulfilled (which means AZ fcuked up, not the EU) or
2. It is up to the supplier to ensure that they can fulfill both contracts without impediment to the other (which means AZ fcuked up, again, not the EU)

Why do you think it doesnt mean what I, and countless others on this thread alone, think it means? And what do YOU think it means, oh wise one?

01-02-2021 07:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They were insisting on waiting on Sanofi first. That was plan A. Only now that they have messed up have they rushed through A solution to get Sanofi to produce the Pfizer vaccine.

Yes, correct.......and that plan went t1ts up when the Sanofi one suffered a setback.

So, what should they have done? Ignored Sanofi and went with Pfizer?

And what would have happened then if it was Pfizer who messed up? What then?

You cannot hold them accountable for matters outside of their control.

brickster69 · 01-02-2021 07:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I would bet a serious amount of money that the UK contract DOES say that. I'd nearly go so far as to wager that the two contracts are almost identical.

So that means 1 of 2 things:
1. The two contracts are in direct competition with each other and could never have both been fulfilled (which means AZ fcuked up, not the EU) or
2. It is up to the supplier to ensure that they can fulfill both contracts without impediment to the other (which means AZ fcuked up, again, not the EU)

Why do you think it doesnt mean what I, and countless others on this thread alone, think it means? And what do YOU think it means, oh wise one?

You forgot to mention what the fcuk does it have to do with the UK. Especially when the agreement was signed by a Swedish company & the EU.

Pete_Cavan · 01-02-2021 07:18PM

robinph wrote: »

What if the UK contract signed 3 months earlier also says that the supply to the UK cannot be impacted by the rollout to other countries?

I seriously doubt that line in the contract actually means what you think it does.

We don't know what the UK/AZ contract says but it doesn't affect the EU/AZ contract. They are entirely separate.

We do know what the EU/AZ contract says (mostly) and AZ confirm in it that "it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations".

Donald Trump · 01-02-2021 07:23PM

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.

Wonder why Astrazenica AB then signed a contract which mentioned their factories in the UK.

It would go strongly against your argument if this different company - Astrazeneca GB - were getting supplies from Astrazenica AB's UK factories then, no?

It would be even more strange if Astrazenica AB lied to the EU and pretended that it had factories in the UK that it did not!

brickster69 · 01-02-2021 07:27PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

We don't know what the UK/AZ contract says but it doesn't affect the EU/AZ contract. They are entirely separate.

We do know what the EU/AZ contract says (mostly) and AZ confirm in it that "it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations".

Yes and none of the contracted initial doses were to come from the UK they were stipulated to come from inside the EU. So how would that contract interfere with EU supply ?

Bass Reeves · 01-02-2021 07:34PM

AZ have agreed to up there deliveries to the EU by 30%. Ireland will receive 100k extra doses of the AZ vaccines. The AZ deliveries will start earlier and the intending to up there production in the EU.

Looks like hardball is starting to work

Pete_Cavan · 01-02-2021 07:40PM

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes and none of the contracted initial doses were to come from the UK they were stipulated to come from inside the EU. So how would that contract interfere with EU supply ?

It doesn't stipulate that the initial dosed come from inside the EU, 5.1 says "AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU". That certainly leaves the door open for doses to be manufactured outside the EU and so a priority clause in the UK contract goes against 13.1 (e).

Melanchthon · 01-02-2021 07:42PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

AZ have agreed to up there deliveries to the EU by 30%. Ireland will receive 100k extra doses of the AZ vaccines. The AZ deliveries will start earlier and the intending to up there production in the EU.

Looks like hardball is starting to work

Isn't that just positive political spin though on a result already achieved? Considering back at the end of last week that amount was considered insufficient?It's good news alright definitely but can't help feel it's being pushed now as a result because of the sh-tshow later on Friday.

The EU official directly involved in talks with the company said that AstraZeneca had later offered to increase deliveries to possibly 39 million doses in the first quarter, which the EU considered insufficient.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2K30UO

Pete_Cavan · 01-02-2021 07:44PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

AZ have agreed to up there deliveries to the EU by 30%. Ireland will receive 100k extra doses of the AZ vaccines. The AZ deliveries will start earlier and the intending to up there production in the EU.

Looks like hardball is starting to work

It also calls into question whether AZ had actually made their "best efforts" previously as they seem to be able to go beyond those efforts now.

brickster69 · 01-02-2021 07:47PM

Donald Trump wrote: »

Wonder why Astrazenica AB then signed a contract which mentioned their factories in the UK.

It would go strongly against your argument if this different company - Astrazeneca GB - were getting supplies from Astrazenica AB's UK factories then, no?

It would be even more strange if Astrazenica AB lied to the EU and pretended that it had factories in the UK that it did not!

Because in August 2020 the UK was in the single market & customs union

Why not the Uk were still in the single market & customs union and money invested in the plants will of been money that the UK was paying to the EU. Besides that the UK sent the raw material to it's own EU subcontractor to fill the doses and never interfered with EU production.

This is the main point AZ are not producing the Vaccine from any of it's own factories. The work has all been outsourced to other companies both in the UK and EU. None of them owned by AZ.

brickster69 · 01-02-2021 08:02PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It also calls into question whether AZ had actually made their "best efforts" previously as they seem to be able to go beyond those efforts now.

It does not though. It mentions "reasonable best efforts" which is less than best efforts and states it 14 times. Reasonable best efforts is not a guarantee, it is i will try my best.

You go to a court with " reasonable best efforts in a contract 14 times the judge will say " well they have emphasised they will try it's best " then the other party has to prove they never.

robinph · 01-02-2021 08:03PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

We don't know what the UK/AZ contract says but it doesn't affect the EU/AZ contract. They are entirely separate.

We do know what the EU/AZ contract says (mostly) and AZ confirm in it that "it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations".

The claim being put forward in defence of the EU is that their contract requires the one with the UK to be thrown out. There is no way that just because an EU supply chain has failed they are therfore required to also break their UK supply.

sameoldname · 01-02-2021 08:11PM

robinph wrote: »

The claim being put forward in defence of the EU is that their contract requires the one with the UK to be thrown out. There is no way that just because an EU supply chain has failed they are therfore required to also break their UK supply.

Wouldn't it more be akin to: AstroZeneca's supply chain has broken down, they need to make their best effort to fulfill both orders regardless of where it's manufactured?

Pete_Cavan · 01-02-2021 08:20PM

brickster69 wrote: »

It does not though. It mentions "reasonable best efforts" which is less than best efforts and states it 14 times. Reasonable best efforts is not a guarantee, it is i will try my best.

You go to a court with " reasonable best efforts in a contract 14 times the judge will say " well they have emphasised they will try it's best " then the other party has to prove they never.

But one of those 14 is Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU. Maintaining that same logic, the contract doesn't prevent some of the initial doses being manufactured outside the EU. If that is the case, then thry should have informed the EU of any priority clause which may exist in the UK/AZ contract.

If AZ can suddenly pull out millions of extra doses a week after reducing their expected deliveries, you would have to wonder about their previous efforts.

robinph · 01-02-2021 08:22PM

sameoldname wrote: »

Wouldn't it more be akin to: AstroZeneca's supply chain has broken down, they need to make their best effort to fulfill both orders regardless of where it's manufactured?

Which is a very different position to people arguing that the UK supply has to be stopped because the EU says so. Making best efforts to fulfil both orders is not the same as EU supply can't be stopped or that the UK supply has to be diverted to the EU.

Pete_Cavan · 01-02-2021 08:24PM

robinph wrote: »

Which is a very different position to people arguing that the UK supply has to be stopped because the EU says so. Making best efforts to fulfil both orders is not the same as EU supply can't be stopped or that the UK supply has to be diverted to the EU.

I genuinely don't think anyone, anywhere, ever said that the UK supply has to be stopped! Pure strawman.

robinph · 01-02-2021 08:30PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I genuinely don't think anyone, anywhere, ever said that the UK supply has to be stopped! Pure strawman.

Is that not what is being suggested here?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, they don't. It specifically says in the contract that the manufacture and rollout of the vaccine to other countries can in no way impact upon the rolout to EU countries. You either haven't been paying attention or you're refusing to see what's in front of your eyes.

This sounds like they are claiming that the EU supply takes precedent over all other countries supply's and the EU should get their full supply before any other contract is completed.

sameoldname · 01-02-2021 08:31PM

robinph wrote: »

Which is a very different position to people arguing that the UK supply has to be stopped because the EU says so. Making best efforts to fulfil both orders is not the same as EU supply can't be stopped or that the UK supply has to be diverted to the EU.

Who wanted the UK supply stopped? The EU never asked for that. They did ask for the UK plants to help to make up for the shortfall as per the contract.

brickster69 · 01-02-2021 08:34PM

I'd love to see what people were saying if the roles were reversed and UK had delays and the EU sites were whacking the stuff out full whack.

Oh, no problem Mr. UK, just send us your address and it will be out in a couple of days. Glad to help.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments