What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

sameoldname · 01-02-2021 08:41PM

brickster69 wrote: »

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.

Can we stop this issue of separating a single company down geographic lines please? They aren't UK production lines and they aren't EU production lines, they are AstroZeneca production lines as per the contract they signed with the EU.

Pete_Cavan · 01-02-2021 08:47PM

robinph wrote: »

Is that not what is being suggested here?

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.

No idea how you came to that interpretation. Again, nobody, particularly not the EU, has suggested that EU supply takes precedent over all other countries. The EU want AZ to also supply them from UK manufacturing sites, as well as supplying the UK. Their contract allows for this (it certainly doesn't rule it out) so AZ should honour their contract with the EU. No doubt they should also honour their contract with the UK, but that is no concern of the EU.

The EU contract also sees AZ confirm that they have no other contractual commitments which prevent them from fulfilling their contract with the EU but they now say the UK contract says that they get priority over other customers. That is what pisses off the EU but their issue is with AZ.

Pete_Cavan · 01-02-2021 08:51PM

brickster69 wrote: »

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.

Er, you mean a bit like the Pfizer situation where they have also failed to meet initial delivery targets but Pfizer vaccines made in EU still going to the UK?

brickster69 · 01-02-2021 09:15PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Er, you mean a bit like the Pfizer situation where they have also failed to meet initial delivery targets but Pfizer vaccines made in EU still going to the UK?

It does not matter which countries they are going to. The UK ordered from Pfizer, paid Pfizer and are getting supplied from Pfizer. They are a global company you know and not even European, so they can supply whoever they want.

EU wanted everything set up in the EU so they were being supplied from the EU. I don't think any country has purchased anything from the UK direct as far as i know.

Just unfortunate they have had a delay which it looks like everyone has at some point. Could happen at anytime anywhere from the sound of it.

mista11 · 01-02-2021 09:19PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Er, you mean a bit like the Pfizer situation where they have also failed to meet initial delivery targets but Pfizer vaccines made in EU still going to the UK?

The AZ UK contract says any manufacture in the UK sites we are priority

The AZ EU contract says any manufacture in the EU sites we are priority

Maufacture in both Az factories is behind what is promised but AZ are making the best reasonable efforts to catch up in both. Best reasonable efforts does not mean they can break an exsisting supply contract

The pzizer must have some form of fair share clause in it

Simple

brickster69 · 01-02-2021 09:25PM

mista11 wrote: »

The AZ UK contract says any manufacture in the UK sites we are priority

The AZ EU contract says any manufacture in the EU sites we are priority

Maufacture in both Az factories is behind what is promised but AZ are making the best reasonable efforts to catch up in both. Best reasonable efforts does not mean they can break an exsisting supply contract

The pzizer must have some form of fair share clause in it

Simple

Yeah, or the UK ordered first from Pfizer. Sound familiar.

Moderna CEO = EU too late
AZ CEO = EU too late
Bion Tech CEO = EU too late

Now another warning

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1356179246209761280

UK did a hell of a lot wrong BTW during this mess obviously.

01-02-2021 09:33PM

robinph wrote: »

Is that not what is being suggested here?

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.

You are inferring your own interpretation of my words. I said nothing of the sort

Pete_Cavan · 01-02-2021 09:41PM

mista11 wrote: »

The AZ UK contract says any manufacture in the UK sites we are priority

The AZ EU contract says any manufacture in the EU sites we are priority

Maufacture in both Az factories is behind what is promised but AZ are making the best reasonable efforts to catch up in both. Best reasonable efforts does not mean they can break an exsisting supply contract

The pzizer must have some form of fair share clause in it

Simple

None of that changes that AZ should have informed EU of any priority clause in their contract with the UK.

Best reasonable efforts also does not mean they offer 30% of the first delivery and that is perfectly fine.

mista11 · 01-02-2021 09:52PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

None of that changes that AZ should have informed EU of any priority clause in their contract with the UK.

Best reasonable efforts also does not mean they offer 30% of the first delivery and that is perfectly fine.

Why, they didnt need to inform them as the EU initial volume is coming from the EU sites so they didnt conflict

The UK got even less than 30%, they should join the EU and take AZ to court together

Pete_Cavan · 01-02-2021 10:00PM

mista11 wrote: »

Why, they didnt need to inform them as the EU initial volume is coming from the EU sites so they didnt conflict

The UK got even less than 30%, they should join the EU and take AZ to court together

Again, the EU contract doesn't specifically forbid initial doses coming from outside the EU.

mista11 · 01-02-2021 10:03PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Again, the EU contract doesn't specifically forbid initial doses coming from outside the EU.

and no where else has any spare to make up the shortfall?

mista11 · 01-02-2021 10:07PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

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.

I wouldnt be suprised if the UK was purposley left out of this clause as they didnt want any made there.

Cut of their nose to spite our face

brickster69 · 01-02-2021 10:49PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Again, the EU contract doesn't specifically forbid initial doses coming from outside the EU.

True, but does not say that they should come from outside the EU either. I read that Boris Johnson spoke with VDL to say there was nothing to prevent it happening in the UK contract.

robinph · 01-02-2021 11:20PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are inferring your own interpretation of my words. I said nothing of the sort

That's great then.

So what's the problem that the EU has with taking whatever it is that AZ are able to supply them with as their production comes on line? Or are they wanting to jump 3 months ahead in the queue?

Would obviously be better for all concerned if EU got a more even portion of the available supply as there is no point in the UK being vaccinated on their own. But why did the EU start throwing their toys out of the pram and throwing them at NI because they sat around for 3 months before placing their order.

The EU screwed up in delaying, and then have been hit by unexpected production problems and got mad at NI about it. AZ then say, heres some more vaccines from another plant, meanwhile the EU seems to be still moaning and saying that they deserve all of their order immediately and want it to be magiced out of somewhere or taken from someone else who has already had their supply.

Sexual Chocolate · 02-02-2021 12:22AM

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

Have any EU countries being supplied any since it's approval a few days ago ?

forumdedum · 02-02-2021 01:09AM

Not condoning the EU (& not certain what they instigated) but is it possible the UK and their Brexit 'delays' etc re deal used up a lot of valuable resources and time that served as a distraction when they should have been focussed on ordering vaccines, assisting with factory building etc

02-02-2021 10:33AM

robinph wrote: »

That's great then.

So what's the problem that the EU has with taking whatever it is that AZ are able to supply them with as their production comes on line? Or are they wanting to jump 3 months ahead in the queue?

Would obviously be better for all concerned if EU got a more even portion of the available supply as there is no point in the UK being vaccinated on their own. But why did the EU start throwing their toys out of the pram and throwing them at NI because they sat around for 3 months before placing their order.

The EU screwed up in delaying, and then have been hit by unexpected production problems and got mad at NI about it. AZ then say, heres some more vaccines from another plant, meanwhile the EU seems to be still moaning and saying that they deserve all of their order immediately and want it to be magiced out of somewhere or taken from someone else who has already had their supply.

No, that's not what they're doing. It is what the Brexiteers and the anti-EU knuckle-draggers are CLAIMING the EU are doing, but that doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny.

The rest of your points have been addressed already in this thread, we are literally going in circles. The delay in creating and signing the contracts lies almost entirely at AZs feet. But here's the kicker, even if we had signed the contract earlier, we still would have run into the same supply issues. It doesn't matter if we had signed the contract in 2019, the bottleneck is on the production side.

Everyone was told they couldn't enter into contract without EMA approval. AZ didn't apply for approval until 12th January. How can they approve a vaccine for which someone hasn't yet applied for approval? If you read that press release, you'll note that the EMA had been assessing some of the data involved for weeks/months already, so were proactive in ensuring there was minimal delay between application and approval. Remember, the UK only approved it on 30th December, and we were less than a month later.

Finally, regarding the bit in bold, the reason for the friction in the first place is because the EU (i.e. me, you and the rest of Ireland) felt they were getting a raw deal. We were right to kick up a fuss about it.
We were due to get 300m doses, but were told "sorry, there's an issue with production in some Euro plants so you'll be getting a fraction of that".
We said "but the contract says that we can be supplied by the EU and the UK plants, so can't you make up the shortfall from the UK ones, no?"
"sorry, they're UK doses and our contract with them forbids us from giving them to you"
"but YOUR contract with US states that we can get them from the UK plants?"
".....[radio silence]...."
"and aren't the UK already getting some doses from European plants, including the ones with the production issues"
"....[more radio silence]...."
"why is your contract with them at loggerheads with the one you have with us? There's a specific clause in ours that says you are obliged to supply us regardless of whatever other contracts you've signed, no?"
".....[radio silence again]...."

It's like 'sharing' your bowl of ice cream with a toddler. Everything is fine as they help themselves to whatever you have, but as soon as you try to grab a spoonful of theirs then it all kicks off.

The Tories in the UK are gonna go blind, they're jerking each other off so much over this. But the EU can never win, in their eyes. If we don't kick up a storm then its "The toothless EU gets shafted and cannot enforce their contracts". If we dig our heels in then its "Bully boys in Brussels try to steal your vaccines!".

Damned if you do...

robinph · 02-02-2021 10:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

We were due to get 300m doses, but were told "sorry, there's an issue with production in some Euro plants so you'll be getting a fraction of that".
We said "but the contract says that we can be supplied by the EU and the UK plants, so can't you make up the shortfall from the UK ones, no?"
"sorry, they're UK doses and our contract with them forbids us from giving them to you"
"but YOUR contract with US states that we can get them from the UK plants?"
".....[radio silence]...."
"and aren't the UK already getting some doses from European plants, including the ones with the production issues"
"....[more radio silence]...."
"why is your contract with them at loggerheads with the one you have with us? There's a specific clause in ours that says you are obliged to supply us regardless of whatever other contracts you've signed, no?"
".....[radio silence again]...."

Presumably the doses from EU plants going to the UK were when the EU hadn't yet approved making use of them, makes sense to send the doses where they can be used doesn't it?

Now the EU has said they can make use of the vaccine then where are these extra doses meant to appear from if there are production problems with the plants in the EU. Yes, there could be a more even sharing of doses from plants based in the UK for the benefit of everyone, but not without impacting on the already agreed supply to the UK.

Why does the EU take precedence over the UK supply?

Deleted User wrote: »

It's like 'sharing' your bowl of ice cream with a toddler. Everything is fine as they help themselves to whatever you have, but as soon as you try to grab a spoonful of theirs then it all kicks off.

More like the UK finished their bowl, then the EU's bowl lands on the floor (because the cat ran across the table and knocked it over) and demands some from your now empty bowl. Where is this ice cream meant to suddenly appear from? Meanwhile the EU started kicking your knee (NI) in retribution for what the cat did.

Bass Reeves · 02-02-2021 11:07AM

robinph wrote: »

Presumably the doses from EU plants going to the UK were when the EU hadn't yet approved making use of them, makes sense to send the doses where they can be used doesn't it?

Now the EU has said they can make use of the vaccine then where are these extra doses meant to appear from if there are production problems with the plants in the EU. Yes, there could be a more even sharing of doses from plants based in the UK for the benefit of everyone, but not without impacting on the already agreed supply to the UK.

Why does the EU take precedence over the UK supply?

.

There is no reason you cannot stockpile supply it has not got to be used in 2-3 weeks. Vaccine manufactured in the EU could have been stockpiled for the first quarter supply. However AZ decided to fulfill the UK contract, maybe even send them optional doses rather than stockpiling for EU contract

This may have been a political decision by the CEO of AZ if he was a brexit supporter which seems to be coming out now. The EU contract stands or fall on its own detail. It has nothing to do with the UK contract. The EU want AZ to fullfil the contract it signed with the EU. Some of the management in AZ it looked like decided to shaft the EU commission and make it look useless while making Brexit seem an more flexible solution.

It seems they wanted to continue not just fill the UK contract from UK plants but divert product from EU plants and are now backtracking. AZ was it seems acting politically and not in good faith.

robinph · 02-02-2021 11:08AM

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a specific clause in ours that says you are obliged to supply us regardless of whatever other contracts you've signed, no?

Specifically on this point which you've made previously, how exactly is this meant to work?

Plant in country A producing 100 items and contract with country A to supply 100 items.

Another plant in country B producing 100 items, but plant breaks and can only produce 30 items. Country B ordered 100 items and demands their missing items come from the plant in country A. How is that not breaking the contract with country A and country B claiming they are more important than the other?

That the EU are permitted to be supplied from plants in other countries doesn't mean that they will be if the capacity isn't there to do so.

robinph · 02-02-2021 11:13AM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

There is no reason you cannot stockpile supply it has not got to be used in 2-3 weeks. Vaccine manufactured in the EU could have been stockpiled for the first quarter supply. However AZ decided to fulfill the UK contract, maybe even send them optional doses rather than stockpiling for EU contract

When were the production issues happening in the EU plant, and when were the doses from their being sent to the UK instead of stockpiling in anticipation of the EU making use of them?

micosoft · 02-02-2021 11:34AM

robinph wrote: »

That's great then.

So what's the problem that the EU has with taking whatever it is that AZ are able to supply them with as their production comes on line? Or are they wanting to jump 3 months ahead in the queue?

Would obviously be better for all concerned if EU got a more even portion of the available supply as there is no point in the UK being vaccinated on their own. But why did the EU start throwing their toys out of the pram and throwing them at NI because they sat around for 3 months before placing their order.

The EU screwed up in delaying, and then have been hit by unexpected production problems and got mad at NI about it. AZ then say, heres some more vaccines from another plant, meanwhile the EU seems to be still moaning and saying that they deserve all of their order immediately and want it to be magiced out of somewhere or taken from someone else who has already had their supply.

Because taking the date the contract was signed and disregarding literally everything else - contracts, commitments etc is not how this works. The fundamental issue here is that AZ has prioritised one customer over another.

The idea being pushed that if the EU signed 24 hours before the UK it would have gotten most of the UK supply is non reasonable. Folk are reading into the signing date and the "best effort" clauses meaning that is simply not correct. If it were true its suggesting that the EU has never signed a valid contract in its existance.

micosoft · 02-02-2021 11:40AM

robinph wrote: »

Specifically on this point which you've made previously, how exactly is this meant to work?

Plant in country A producing 100 items and contract with country A to supply 100 items.

Another plant in country B producing 100 items, but plant breaks and can only produce 30 items. Country B ordered 100 items and demands their missing items come from the plant in country A. How is that not breaking the contract with country A and country B claiming they are more important than the other?

That the EU are permitted to be supplied from plants in other countries doesn't mean that they will be if the capacity isn't there to do so.

If the contract specifies supplies will be from Country A & B.
If country A received items from Country B when it was having teething problems.
If Company knew all of the above but failed to disclose it to country B.
If Company knew all of the above but failed to disclose in a timely manner.
If Country A publicly denounced Vaccine nationalism while writing into contract with Company not to export vaccines while happily importing from country B.

It's astonishing how the warped UK narrative has taken hold in Ireland.

I'd love the folk who are screaming about proposing article 16 (not invoking it) how they would feel if a truck with 100k vaccines bought by Ireland through the EU got off at Rosslare and instead of stopping in Dublin drove on over the border and over the the UK. Would people be upset then? Or was the EU's proposal exactly the same as Arlene running out of M&S ready meals? A lot of folk could do with winding their neck and and expanding their news coverage to see what exactly has been going on here.

robinph · 02-02-2021 11:44AM

micosoft wrote: »

It's astonishing how the warped UK narrative has taken hold in Ireland.

Just t0 put your mind at ease on this point, you do know that the internet is global right?

robinph · 02-02-2021 11:56AM

Do we know when these production issues were identified by AZ?
When were the EU made aware of them?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55817633

He told La Repubblica that problems in "scaling up" vaccine production were being experienced at two plants, one in the Netherlands and one in Belgium.

"It's complicated, especially in the early phase where you have to really sort out all sorts of issues," he said.

"We believe we've sorted out those issues, but we are basically two months behind where we wanted to be."

He added: "We've also had teething issues like this in the UK supply chain. But the UK contract was signed three months before the European vaccine deal. So with the UK we have had an extra three months to fix all the glitches we experienced.

Same problems with the EU based plants as were happening in the UK ones, but the UK ones had a 3 month headstart over the EU ones.

The article also mentions that Pfizer have slowed production to the EU as well. Should they have checked with the EU before doing that so that the EU could have said to wait a bit on their upgrade because AZ have some other problems at the moment and they need something from somewhere? It's a few unfortunate things all seem to have happened at the same time and hit the EU vaccine program. Its a bit of bad luck, but kicking off a fight about it is probably not the best resolution.

Demanding things like your full quota of vaccine when it's not currently possible to provide it is all a bit futile and just makes the EU out to be the toddler screaming about their ice cream mentioned previously.

02-02-2021 12:18PM

robinph wrote: »

Presumably the doses from EU plants going to the UK were when the EU hadn't yet approved making use of them, makes sense to send the doses where they can be used doesn't it?

That's a pretty big presumption you're making out of thin air there, chief. Why would you presume something when the facts are laid bare for everyone to see? But the point is moot.....the EU contract states that AZ were to stockpile doses until such time as approval was granted, and then they'd distribute those doses to Europeans. "Sorry, we gave all yours to your neighbours" doesn't cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

robinph wrote: »

Now the EU has said they can make use of the vaccine then where are these extra doses meant to appear from if there are production problems with the plants in the EU. Yes, there could be a more even sharing of doses from plants based in the UK for the benefit of everyone, but not without impacting on the already agreed supply to the UK.

They're not meant to be 'extra doses', they are meant to be ready to go to the European market.That fcuk up is on the supplier's side, not the contractor's. That is what they agreed to, i.e. that they'd have X number of doses ready for Europe.

Turning around at the last minute and saying "those doses you paid for, which were produced in your factories that you're also paying for are going to the UK because we signed a legally binding contract contract with them, oh and by the way........fcuk your legally binding contract with us" is a scumbag move, and is the reason for having a contract in the first place, so there are repercussions when you fail to deliver.

robinph wrote: »

Why does the EU take precedence over the UK supply?

Why does the UK contract take precedence over the EU one?
Answer: It doesn't. The two contracts, if they contain the same wording and clause regarding exclusivity, are incompatible with each other and should never have both been signed.

robinph wrote: »

Specifically on this point which you've made previously, how exactly is this meant to work?

Plant in country A producing 100 items and contract with country A to supply 100 items.

Another plant in country B producing 100 items, but plant breaks and can only produce 30 items. Country B ordered 100 items and demands their missing items come from the plant in country A. How is that not breaking the contract with country A and country B claiming they are more important than the other?

That is the whole basis for the argument. The two contracts are in competition with each other, despite assurances (on the EU side at least) that they would not be. "Do you promise to fulfill this contract and promise that no other contracts you've entered into will stop you from fulfillment?.....Yes......Where's our vaccines?......well there's this other contract, y'know, and we promised blah blah"

You're also missing a vital detail from your example, though. The plant in country A has also broken down and can only produce a certain % of the 100 items. But some of the 30 produced in country B are being shipped to country A to bolster that order, but this arrangement isn't being reciprocated. Questions were asked, and answers weren't forthcoming.

robinph wrote: »

That the EU are permitted to be supplied from plants in other countries doesn't mean that they will be if the capacity isn't there to do so.

Exactly. So, how do you resolve that problem? You ask the supplier for an update on whether or not the capacity is there to do so, yeah? Isn't that a reasonable course of action to take?

But EU Commission officials said on Wednesday that under the contract, the company had also committed to providing vaccines from two factories in Britain.

They added the firm had not provided sufficient explanations on why doses could not be shipped from stocks at factories which experienced no production problem, like those in Britain.

Source

What do you do when they cannot satisfy your questions about that capacity? You take them to task over breach of contract, that's what you do. If they have another contract with someone else which they are prioritising over your contract, well tough sh1t, our contract specifically prohibits them from doing that. That's another breach of contract.

I mean, what's the alternative? Lie down and just say "fair enough"?

The timeline, simplified, appears to look like this:
Start production prior to agreements in both UK and EU plants
Agree UK contract
Agree EU contract
Get UK Approval
UK plants run into production problems, make up the shortfall using EU doses
Get EU approval
EU plants run into same problems, "can we make up the shortfall using UK doses...?"
Can you fcuk, they're for the UK only, now get your dirty mitts off them

02-02-2021 12:29PM

I forgot to add, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was the EU taking UK doses in the first place and then not reciprocating when the UK supply ran into difficulties, the Tories and the conservative rags in the British media would be frothing at the mouth. I mean, they're on the side that has benefited more in this equation and they're still playing the part of a sore loser.

It's not like they have any recent examples of petty bull****, now, is there?

Oh.

robinph · 02-02-2021 12:47PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I forgot to add, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was the EU taking UK doses in the first place and then not reciprocating when the UK supply ran into difficulties, the Tories and the conservative rags in the British media would be frothing at the mouth. I mean, they're on the side that has benefited more in this equation and they're still playing the part of a sore loser.

It's not like they have any recent examples of petty bull****, now, is there?

Oh.

Absolutely, but I don't get the impression about the UK acting as the sore loser on this. Maybe in the red tops, but they should be ignored under all circumstances.

It's just being portrayed as the EU screwed up by delaying the signing of contacts back last year, and that they screwed up by threatening to give a kicking to NI.

Tyrone212 · 02-02-2021 12:54PM

Russian vaccine 92% efficiency
Zero hospitalisations/deaths
Zero severe reactions
Trial of 20k people
Published in lancet today

Better Efficiency than Oxford. We should order it.

Pete_Cavan · 02-02-2021 12:55PM

robinph wrote: »

Same problems with the EU based plants as were happening in the UK ones, but the UK ones had a 3 month headstart over the EU ones.

That is complete and utter bull. There should be bans for still repeating it.

AZ confirmed in June they had agreed to scale up production for deliveries starting by the end of 2020;

https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/press-releases/2020/astrazeneca-to-supply-europe-with-up-to-400-million-doses-of-oxford-universitys-vaccine-at-no-profit.html

They were working towards that before the contract was signed with the EU. They then signed up to a delivery schedule and confirmed they had no other contractual commitments which would impede that.

If the UK plants had a 3 month head start, why did the UK's initial doses come from Europe? The UK's Vaccine Taskforce also confirms here that not all of the 100m doses the UK ordered would be manufactured in the UK;

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-astrazenec/uks-initial-astrazeneca-shots-will-come-from-europe-taskforce-says-idUKKBN28I1NH?edition-redirect=uk

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments