What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Rebelbrowser · 13-03-2021 03:22PM

Posted this elsewhere as didn't know there was a dedicated AZ thread. Sorry if this has been asked and answered but why don't the EU launch injunctive proceedings looking for specific performance of the contract - unless Belgian law (think the contract has a Belgian choice of law clause) is very different to Irish law. The contract is poorly drafted but there is enough in it from whats been reported to at least seek a mandatory injunction. If there was an interlocutory Order against AZ it may force them to divert UK product etc (or at least would be the most likely route to lighting a fire under them). Downside is EU sue, they fail to get interlocutory relief, but the case is still live with the EU looking, presumably, for mega damages in lieu at the full trial- still a stick with which to beat AZ. The only other downside is the costs of losing but I think the EU can just about absorb a 7 figure sum in the circumstances.

mick087 · 13-03-2021 03:34PM

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Posted this elsewhere as didn't know there was a dedicated AZ thread. Sorry if this has been asked and answered but why don't the EU launch injunctive proceedings looking for specific performance of the contract - unless Belgian law (think the contract has a Belgian choice of law clause) is very different to Irish law. The contract is poorly drafted but there is enough in it from whats been reported to at least seek a mandatory injunction. If there was an interlocutory Order against AZ it may force them to divert UK product etc (or at least would be the most likely route to lighting a fire under them). Downside is EU sue, they fail to get interlocutory relief, but the case is still live with the EU looking, presumably, for mega damages in lieu at the full trial- still a stick with which to beat AZ. The only other downside is the costs of losing but I think the EU can just about absorb a 7 figure sum in the circumstances.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/

Strazdas · 13-03-2021 03:50PM

Wolf359f wrote: »

In the case of the UK of the ~24 mil doses given, approx 10mil were produced in the UK, the rest came from the EU. So they relied and rely heavily on foreign supply. Even more so with 10mil doses coming from India.

I would say most of the British public are under the impression that the UK manufactures all of its own vaccines (thanks to jingoistic gaslighting on this issue from the Tories and the Daily Mail etc).

is_that_so · 13-03-2021 03:54PM

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm not sure where we are with Novavax and what the issue is, but they (EU) seem confident that CureVac will be authorised very soon.

Novavax supposedly in July and CureVac in June. There was a preliminary agreement with Novavax in December.

robinph · 13-03-2021 04:02PM

Strazdas wrote: »

I would say most of the British public are under the impression that the UK manufactures all of its own vaccines (thanks to jingoistic gaslighting on this issue from the Tories and the Daily Mail etc).

The map on the bottom of this page showing where vaccines are coming from has been stuck in most of the vaccination related articles on the BBC for months now, and most of the UK population do not read the Daily ****.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55274833

Strazdas · 13-03-2021 04:51PM

robinph wrote: »

The map on the bottom of this page showing where vaccines are coming from has been stuck in most of the vaccination related articles on the BBC for months now, and most of the UK population do not read the Daily ****.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55274833

Well, there was lots of stuff at the time of the EU-AZ row about how "the EU are trying to steal our vaccines", with a clear implication the UK was manufacturing most of its doses, the success of the vaccination programme was down to this and the EU was trying to get their hands on these vaccines. The English tabloids have completely overemphasised just how much AstraZeneca was manufactured in the UK, giving their readers the impression that tens of millions of vaccine doses this year have originated in Britain.

It was the tabloids themselves going with the 'vaccine success is totally down to Brexit' angle. This could hardly be the case if the UK was importing many millions of its vaccine doses from the EU.

WoollyRedHat · 13-03-2021 05:10PM

Could AstraZeneca not license other companies to become partners to manufacture the Oxford vaccine?

robinph · 13-03-2021 05:13PM

Unless Piers Morgan was repeating the nonsense in the tabloids each day then most people won't be seeing their headlines. Very few people buy newspapers, and unless you are watching 24 hour news channels at 11pm each evening your probably not aware of what their latest headlines are. Only really get into the public consciousness when they print something racist about the Royal family so then get replicated by other media.

I hear far more about what the UK red tops are saying from you guys getting outraged about it, than from seeing it in person.

is_that_so · 13-03-2021 05:21PM

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Could AstraZeneca not license other companies to become partners to manufacture the Oxford vaccine?

Think there are already two other agreements, SSI in India and a company in SA. EMA are auditing a plant in India producing AZ.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-india-eu-exclusive-idUSKCN2AT1J0

Rebelbrowser · 13-03-2021 06:32PM

mick087 wrote: »

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/

That's unbelievable. Contracting out of the right to sue for delays. Jesus wept. Does sound like EU should think of Irish law choice of law clauses in such scenarios as common law family of laws seems more purchaser friendly.

Danzy · 13-03-2021 06:39PM

tom1ie wrote: »

But how are the USA/ UK getting away with this?

They took the vaccine program seriously, others did not.

Can't blame them for that.

The cost of this to the EU will run in to trillions of Euros in the next few years.

A little effort and foresight and crucially enthusiasm for vaccines could have seen this as a success story.

There is a big focus on Astra Zeneca but no vaccine rollout has been a success for Europe.

Astra Zeneca is a handy distraction now.

Failure is failure and making excuses doesn't change the results.

Danzy · 13-03-2021 06:43PM

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

That's unbelievable. Contracting out of the right to sue for delays. Jesus wept. Does sound like EU should think of Irish law choice of law clauses in such scenarios as common law family of laws seems more purchaser friendly.

Had the people who were negotiating the purchases and contracts for the EU any procurement experience?

Many people within Brussels have scathingly described the negotiations as childlike and innocent.

Strazdas · 13-03-2021 06:58PM

Danzy wrote: »

Had the people who were negotiating the purchases and contracts for the EU any procurement experience?

Many people within Brussels have scathingly described the negotiations as childlike and innocent.

Was there are any problem with the Pfizer and Moderna contracts? It seems quite telling that the only issue was with AstraZeneca. If they were a bunch of bungling amateurs, they surely would have messed up all the contracts.

NeuralNetwork · 13-03-2021 07:13PM

Let’s not be totally over the top. The EU still has a vaccine programme and is ramping up. A delay is certainly not going to cost “trillions” but it may cost several tens of billions and far more than the cost of the vaccines.

Strazdas · 13-03-2021 07:23PM

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

Let’s not be totally over the top. The EU still has a vaccine programme and is ramping up. A delay is certainly not going to cost “trillions” but it may cost several tens of billions and far more than the cost of the vaccines.

The delays have been slightly over-egged and overstated. The EU states have administered 48m doses so far and they are expected to have done 100m approx by March 31st.

take everything · 13-03-2021 07:34PM

robinph wrote: »

How is the vaccine tainted?

There is a disagreement over a contract and some supply issues.
Separately there is a coincidence of some people getting blood clots at the normal rate in the general population, but they happened to have had a vaccine recently. No indication that the vaccine is anything to do with that.

What are you seeing to suggest there is a problem with the vaccine, other than the name of the company is appearing in lots of news articles?

Its efficacy is 60%.
The efficacy of mRNA vaccines are 90-95%.

And there are doubts about its efficacy against variants specifically.

Never ceases to amaze me how people ignore what they don't like to hear.

Danzy · 13-03-2021 07:38PM

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

That's unbelievable. Contracting out of the right to sue for delays. Jesus wept. Does sound like EU should think of Irish law choice of law clauses in such scenarios as common law family of laws seems more purchaser friendly.

Had the people who were negotiating the purchases and contracts for the EU any procurement experience?

Many people within Brussels have scathingly described the negotiations as childlike and innocent.

Danzy · 13-03-2021 07:44PM

take everything wrote: »

Its efficacy is 60%.
The efficacy of mRNA vaccines are 90-95%.

Never ceases to amaze me how people ignore what they don't like to hear.

81% efficacy with 12 week gap, lower if shorter than that.

So by vaccine standards it is highly effective, not as mind blowingly so as the mRNA ones, which are incredibly high.

There is no scientific or medical reason to not use the Astra Zeneca.

You may have your own psychological need to focus in on that vaccine. I'm not judging, I've had my own in the past.

You would however be genuinely tapped not to take it.

sameoldname · 13-03-2021 07:54PM

Danzy wrote: »

Had the people who were negotiating the purchases and contracts for the EU any procurement experience?

Many people within Brussels have scathingly described the negotiations as childlike and innocent.

I asked you this before and you didn't answer but would you have been happier with the EU if they had written their contracts the same as the UK and ensured that EU production stayed exclusively within the block?

take everything · 13-03-2021 07:55PM

Danzy wrote: »

81% efficacy with 12 week gap, lower if shorter than that.

So by vaccine standards it is highly effective, not as mind blowingly so as the mRNA ones, which are incredibly high.

There is no scientific or medical reason to not use the Astra Zeneca.

You may have your own psychological need to focus in on that vaccine. I'm not judging, I've had my own in the past.

You would however be genuinely tapped not to take it.

60%. 80%.
Compared to 90-95% I know which vaccine I'd prefer my parents to get.

Does that 60-80% even refer to its efficacy in the elderly. Or is it less in the elderly.

There also seems to more problems with this company's methodology as to how they arrived at those figures compared to the others as mentioned above in the thread.

And that's before talking about its efficacy against variants

robinph · 13-03-2021 07:55PM

Really doesn't matter if the vaccine is 60%, 80% or 95% effective if you can't pursuade your population to take any of them. Vaccine take up in the likes of France is shocking for normal vaccine programs, won't yet be clear how many people they end up getting covid vaccines into in total for a while yet. Thankfully Irelands population isn't scared of them so whilst they may be a month or so behind the UK program it really won't make much difference next year.

If France has only got 50% of their adult population vaccinated this year then that is a big problem for all of Europe, lot of other European countries are vaccine cautious as well, but think France is generally the lowest take up.

Deseras · 13-03-2021 07:56PM

Some people are dying from blood clots from it
Some countries have stopped using it

Blue Badger · 13-03-2021 07:59PM

Hey all, I've been offered the AZ vaccine and I was wondering if someone can help me understand just what the prevailing thoughts are regarding it's true effectiveness and so on and so forth. There's so much white noise between varying newspapers, broadcasters etc. that it's difficult for me to come to any form of conclusions on this.

In a bid to cut that noise I went directly to the AZ website itself (https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html#!) but that has given me mixed thoughts.

One the one hand they are clearly stating that there's an effectiveness of 76% after first dose, alongside reduction in asymptomatic transmission by 67%. Both of which are terrific. But on the other side it then states that following second dose effectiveness is at 82% while transmission is at 50%.

If this data is taken to be the most accurate at this point in time (is seemingly the most recent published article by AZ describing such on their website) then why is the second dose given? Yes, it increases effectiveness but given the smaller drop in transmission this seems a bit daft. Why not instead give single shots to everyone instead as to me that seems more logical.

What is up with this?

Is there more recent data?

And what's the craic with the previous reports indicating that a half dose followed by full dose gives protection above 90%. I can't seem to find in conclusion to this nor anything stated by the HSE so have no idea what approach they're taking.

JacksonHeightsOwn · 13-03-2021 08:03PM

Blue Badger wrote: »

Hey all, I've been offered the AZ vaccine and I was wondering if someone can help me understand just what the prevailing thoughts are regarding it's true effectiveness and so on and so forth. There's so much white noise between varying newspapers, broadcasters etc. that it's difficult for me to come to any form of conclusions on this.

In a bid to cut that noise I went directly to the AZ website itself (https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html#!) but that has given me mixed thoughts.

One the one hand they are clearly stating that there's an effectiveness of 76% after first dose, alongside reduction in asymptomatic transmission by 67%. Both of which are terrific. But on the other side it then states that following second dose effectiveness is at 82% while transmission is at 50%.

If this data is taken to be the most accurate at this point in time (is seemingly the most recent published article by AZ describing such on their website) then why is the second dose given? Yes, it increases effectiveness but given the smaller drop in transmission this seems a bit daft. Why not instead give single shots to everyone instead as to me that seems more logical.

What is up with this?

Is there more recent data?

And what's the craic with the previous reports indicating that a half dose followed by full dose gives protection above 90%. I can't seem to find in conclusion to this nor anything stated by the HSE so have no idea what approach they're taking.

the irish guy that headed the development of this vaccine was on with Luke Oneill last week.

He was saying the confusion behind the half dose regime and higher efficacy rate was actually that was the group that had the longer break between doses, so the higher efficacy rate was actually from spacing the doses 12 weeks apart as opposed to going half dose- full dose.

NeuralNetwork · 13-03-2021 08:06PM

BioNTech has really upped its game by assembling a 13 company manufacturing coalition, including Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi and Merck (Germany). It may completely change the landscape. They’re looking at producing 2 billion doses.

robinph · 13-03-2021 08:10PM

Deseras wrote: »

Some people are dying from blood clots from it
Some countries have stopped using it

No people haven't died from the vaccine.

You are right that it has been temporarily paused the use of a particular batch whilst investigations happen. Nothing out of the ordinary, nothing unusual about the number of people who have had blood clots. Only unusual thing is that a medicine being temporarily paused makes headline news whilst investigating.

brickster69 · 13-03-2021 08:25PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Think there are already two other agreements, SSI in India and a company in SA. EMA are auditing a plant in India producing AZ.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-india-eu-exclusive-idUSKCN2AT1J0

Also Brazil, Australia and South Korea.

brickster69 · 13-03-2021 08:33PM

Danzy wrote: »

Had the people who were negotiating the purchases and contracts for the EU any procurement experience?

Yes, VDL was in charge of German Defense and supplied the troops with Broomsticks to go on manoeuvres. True story, yet some bright sparks put her in charge of buying vaccines for 450 Million people during a pandemic.

PCeeeee · 13-03-2021 08:52PM

Blue Badger wrote: »

Hey all, I've been offered the AZ vaccine and I was wondering if someone can help me understand just what the prevailing thoughts are regarding it's true effectiveness and so on and so forth. There's so much white noise between varying newspapers, broadcasters etc. that it's difficult for me to come to any form of conclusions on this.

In a bid to cut that noise I went directly to the AZ website itself (https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html#!) but that has given me mixed thoughts.

One the one hand they are clearly stating that there's an effectiveness of 76% after first dose, alongside reduction in asymptomatic transmission by 67%. Both of which are terrific. But on the other side it then states that following second dose effectiveness is at 82% while transmission is at 50%.

If this data is taken to be the most accurate at this point in time (is seemingly the most recent published article by AZ describing such on their website) then why is the second dose given? Yes, it increases effectiveness but given the smaller drop in transmission this seems a bit daft. Why not instead give single shots to everyone instead as to me that seems more logical.

What is up with this?

Is there more recent data?

And what's the craic with the previous reports indicating that a half dose followed by full dose gives protection above 90%. I can't seem to find in conclusion to this nor anything stated by the HSE so have no idea what approach they're taking.

If you need medical advice ask a Doctor please. Anyone could tell you anything here.

The DayDream · 13-03-2021 09:02PM

It is easily searchable. It's not like they're just giving the 2nd dose 84 days later for the craic, that is what gave the highest efficacy.

If you want to get the vaccine just take it as they prescribe. Prepare for the possibility of flu like symptoms lasting 24-48 hrs starting 4 hours after the first jab.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments