What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

is_that_so · 22-03-2021 12:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There are a few things that are apparently overlooked constantly. firstly why block Pfizer to the UK when Pfizer are seemingly meeting their obligations to the EU. Secondly there is a presumption that the UK have gotten more than their fair share of AZ but this is ignoring the relative order size, they ordered 100m for a population of 66m, the EU ordered 300m for a population of 440m. Per capita the UK ordered 1.51 doses a head, the EU 0.68. Considering the UK approved a month before the EU and effectively had double the order size, is anyone surprised the EU are behind the curve?

If anything the AZ mess is distracting from the fact that 1 of the other approved vaccines (approved in January, before AZ) has supplied close to nothing and J & J do not look to have much available until June. Too many eggs are seemingly in one basket.

AZ has promised and hasn't delivered, often alerting the EU to issues at a few hours notice. The other too are supporting the US effort as they got money under Warp Speed but it is known that Q2-Q3 is where they will begin to ship to others in larger quantities. What Moderna have promised they have largely delivered, J&J is likely to be the same.

Tippbhoy1 · 22-03-2021 12:43PM

Aegir wrote: »

so the EU should interfere in the contract between a private company and the UK government to deliberately try and slow down the UK's vaccination programme and make themselves look better?

Nope, the EU should consider making moves to improve the vaccine situation in the EU, to save EU lives, while at the same time monitoring other countries situations that are dependent on EU supply. In this case, the EU have an issue with AZ, they will sort it out between them. Any repercussions of that with other contracts AZ have with others, is AZ's problem.

Strazdas · 22-03-2021 12:43PM

Aegir wrote: »

so the EU should interfere in the contract between a private company and the UK government to deliberately try and slow down the UK's vaccination programme and make themselves look better?

Nothing to do with them and not remotely their concern. The EU didn't sign a contract with the UK. The only people they are dealing with is AstraZeneca.

22-03-2021 12:44PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Nothing to do with them and not remotely their concern. The EU didn't sign a contract with the UK. The only people they are dealing with is AstraZeneca.

that's ironic.

Dyr · 22-03-2021 12:49PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

No, the EU should ensure that private company delivers it's committments and doesn't export it all away.

The AZ- EU contract is out in the public domain maybe you can point out the parts of it that AZ are in breach of?

JFK2000 · 22-03-2021 12:53PM

murphaph wrote: »

Except the EMA approved AZ only a month after the UK (I believe AZ was more cooperative with the UK in this respect too) and the EMA approved Moderna a number of weeks ago already whereas the UK have not approved it at all yet.

UK approved Moderna Jan 8th https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55586410
First shipment suppossed to arrive late April guessing its from Switzerland (only place this side of atlantic I know thats making it ) . Guess shipments to EU will be in the same timescale.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 22-03-2021 12:54PM

Aegir wrote: »

so only block AZ shipments?

I wouldn't disagree with that, but I fail to see why they should interfere with Pfizer deliveries.

If Pfizer meet their commitments to Europe then there's no reason to interfere with their deliveries.

Especially when Pfizer are reliant on ingredients they import.

is_that_so · 22-03-2021 12:57PM

Bambi wrote: »

The AZ- EU contract is out in the public domain maybe you can point out the parts of it that AZ are in breach of?

That would be meeting the deliveries. They can't keep ducking down behind that best effort which is being shown up as very little effort. In the real world this would already be in court with the customer looking for a way to swiftly nullify it.

JFK2000 · 22-03-2021 12:59PM

astrofool wrote: »

The EU should really block shipments to the UK until they are at a comparable supply to the UK (which would see countries like Ireland at a comparable vaccinated %). After that, supply should be let out to allow the EU and UK to progress at the same pace. If the UK are self sufficient with their factories, they should be unaffected.

What may actually happen is that the EU will continue to supply the world, AZ production from EU will be blocked to the UK, Boris and a few of his cheerleaders on here will have a cry about it, and tie themselves in knots arguing that it's unfair, spouting contracts and supplychains and Oxford/AZ are both government and privately run and EU and not EU funded in the same breath (expect the Murdoch group to be particularly vocal), even though their Pfizer supply remains unaffected, and the world moves on.

Its a dangerous game to start ... Pfizer has already publically stated that its european production has a 100% reliance on a key ingredient from the UK (Lipids from some yorkshire factory). If UK retaliated with a export ban on that everyone loses.

Gile_na_gile · 22-03-2021 12:59PM

Elessar wrote: »

I find it ironic that the UK are insisting they get the jabs from the Halix plant and publicly shaming the EU for the blockage, when the EU is just doing exactly what the Brits are doing - putting their own people first.

There is little public information on this, but as you quote some journalists are surmising that AZ is being exported from Halix, or was until the export documentation requirement came into effect.

This is the crux of the issue; not that we steal their precious brexit juice from their UK-based plants, but that they stop tapping our supply by backroom machinations. It seems they are complaining because they actually want more from the Halix plant post export-control!

We also have no concrete information on how much stockpile Halix have, or whether they are continuing to export active ingredients as part of a supply chain which are not / were not registered as doses.

The quote in the IT is a bit at odds with the total export figure for EU vaccine doses incl. Pfizer, so I presume it might be because it was unfinished product?

astrofool · 22-03-2021 01:05PM

Aegir wrote: »

so the EU should interfere in the contract between a private company and the UK government to deliberately try and slow down the UK's vaccination programme and make themselves look better?

They should block vaccines that should be due to the EU by the terms of the contract with the EU so that the EU vaccine rollout can speed up.

Whatever happens in the UK is not of the EU's interest to sort out.

I should note that if AZ thinks this is unfair, they can lodge a case to the European Courts (likely at the country level first) and see how they get on.

astrofool · 22-03-2021 01:10PM

JFK2000 wrote: »

Its a dangerous game to start ... Pfizer has already publically stated that its european production has a 100% reliance on a key ingredient from the UK (Lipids from some yorkshire factory). If UK retaliated with a export ban on that everyone loses.

This was the case a few months ago, but not the case anymore as some of Pfizer production is now completely independent of the UK supplychain.

If the UK retaliated with an export ban, the EU would still have supply of AZ/Pfizer(lessened)/J&J/Moderna, the UK would be alone with AZ until Novavax ramps up (if it could).

Pete_Cavan · 22-03-2021 01:14PM

Aegir wrote: »

so the EU should interfere in the contract between a private company and the UK government to deliberately try and slow down the UK's vaccination programme and make themselves look better?

Do you hold the same logic for the UK government not allowing export of vaccines, is that interfering in a contract between a private company and the EU?

The EU would be enforcing its contract with AZ. It would not be interfering with the contract between AZ and the UK government, it is up to AZ to preform for all their customers.

NeuralNetwork · 22-03-2021 01:18PM

Bear in mind that Avanti-Polar Lipids is a US company that Croda Plc bought in mid-2020. There maybe production in the UK, but they're not really a UK company nor is it a UK developed technology.

They would also cause issues for some aspects of supply into the US and some of these companies are subject to the US Defence Production Act.

Pfizer also has contracts with other companies in the US and Germany to provide liposomes for these vaccines.

I don't realistically think the EU will move to the level of banning anything, but they are likely to be giving certain operators a metaphorical wake up call by drawing serious attention to what's going on with regards to supply chains.

The talk has largely been about reciprocity, transparency and analysis of supply chains.

It would also take a vote at the Council level, not the Commission. So, it'll be the collective governments making a decision. I'm not sure if they can do that by Qualified Majority Vote or not, but it may actually require unanimity, which is unlikely.

I think people are completely failing to recognise that the EU does not move like an executive presidency or a PM in a fit of peak. It absolutely cannot do that and has no way of doing that. It will take an agreement hammered out by 27 governments, represented either by their heads of government (e.g. the Taoiseach in our case) or line ministers for health.

The other thing I would note from some of the language used is the focus is on one company and what was described as 'over selling' and specifically not on the UK government.

I have a feeling in this case two parties have been over sold to and the company's more concerned about the consequences of failing to supply the one where its HQ is.

There's a lot of rhetoric from Brexiteers, pro-brexit media, people annoyed with Brexiteers and people annoyed with vaccine shortages, but the diplomatic and administrative reality of it is a lot less hot headed and will be quite boring.

murphaph · 22-03-2021 01:27PM

I reckon that without proof that the UK government is involved (I reckon it definitely is) in the AZ carry on, the EU should keep this a strictly EU/AZ affair and not move to ban exports of Biontech to the UK because AZ is not delivering on their end. A ban on exports from EU based AZ plants would be entirely appropriate however IMO.

22-03-2021 01:27PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Any ban is likely to relate only to AZ.

That is irrelevant. AZ signed contracts and are bound by the terms of those contracts, other contracts have no bearing on that. AZ should be supplying all customers what they ordered, any other orders those customers have do not change that.
The EU may actually be ahead of the curve had AZ been supplying it from Halix, but AZ created a situation where they couldn't by delaying application for it. EU money was paid upfront to ensure it would meet production but the EU hasn't yet benefited from that.

Wait so you are criticising that the EU has too many eggs in the AZ basket while in the previous breath you said the UK is twice as dependent on AZ? Moderna were upfront on slow delivery to begin with, presumably their contract reflects this.

There is nothing to suggest AZ have actually delivered on their contract to the UK, looks like they have administered about 15m AZ doses so far, they had originally been promised 20m on approval which never happened, and as far as I can seen the other 80m were scheduled equally over 4 quarters. By that they should have received 40m by the end of this month, but that hasn't happened. Looks like they've got about half what was planned, compared with the EU getting 30m of a promised 80m.

Relative to Europe it does not seem the UK is getting a huge amount more than the EU once the order size is accounted for.

Why did the EU ignore getting involved in the manufacturing element until now? Surely they could have foreseen the issues considering they were only ever going the Conditional Marketing route. They've taken the ultimate hands off, free market will sort all approach and it's bitten them on the arse.

How did the EU get the Moderna and J & J pre-order so wrong that those two will and are prioritising the US? Will you just trot out the Warp Speed excuse? Where is the EU's warp speed equivalent?

Why is the EU dragging it's heels on Novovax (UK approval within two weeks)? The vaccine that has thus far recorded the best efficacy in trials.

Add to all this, numerous high profile EU figures have made foolish comments on AZ's efficacy to the point where many Europeans will refuse it if offered to them.

22-03-2021 01:28PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Do you hold the same logic for the UK government not allowing export of vaccines, is that interfering in a contract between a private company and the EU?.

has the UK banned or prevented any exports of vaccines?

NeuralNetwork · 22-03-2021 01:30PM

murphaph wrote: »

I reckon that without proof that the UK government is involved (I reckon it definitely is) in the AZ carry on, the EU should keep this a strictly EU/AZ affair and not move to ban exports of Biontech to the UK because AZ is not delivering on their end. A ban on exports from EU based AZ plants would be entirely appropriate however IMO.

That's precisely what is happening. AstraZeneca's supply chain will just be made fully transparent.

It's not like the EU doesn't have access to national governments' tools like customs agents (and there is now a border), revenue analysis, tax records and even intelligence services.

If there's something weird going on, they will absolutely know about it. It's not like it could be hidden. Anything being exported has a tax paper trail at the very least.

It's basically just a matter of conducting an audit and seeing what's going on and I would suspect it will be the case that there's nothing going on other than a smaller player trying to be a bigger player and having bitten off far more than it could chew.

JFK2000 · 22-03-2021 01:40PM

astrofool wrote: »

This was the case a few months ago, but not the case anymore as some of Pfizer production is now completely independent of the UK supplychain.

They have made moved to diversify supply https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/biontech-secures-deals-for-lipids-needed-in-vaccine/ but that doesn't ramp up until end of 2021 they are not independant.

Various news reports from 3 days ago indicate BioNTech / Pfizer have advised the commission production could grind to a halt in weeks if the UK stopped the flow of these lipids. The UK has already had most of its Pfizer delivered (they only ordered 40million doses) and are more reliant on AZ and other sources for the remaining population.

The EU at least from a PR point of view favours Pfizer and other suppliers. So its in the interst of both parties for them to not rock the boat. Politically there is capital in both camps but escalating it will delay the rollout and harm their economies and citizens.

Strazdas · 22-03-2021 01:41PM

It looks suspiciously like the AZ UK plants are underperforming if they are having to import from the EU and India.

There was talk that they were producing 1m-2m doses a week but that doesn't stack up for a moment - it looks like it is well below that.

Dyr · 22-03-2021 01:51PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Do you hold the same logic for the UK government not allowing export of vaccines, is that interfering in a contract between a private company and the EU?

The EU would be enforcing its contract with AZ. It would not be interfering with the contract between AZ and the UK government, it is up to AZ to preform for all their customers.

Lets ask the question again, what part of its contract with the EU is AZ in breach of? The contract is freely available online, stick the ol legal expert in Belgian contract law hat on and go for it.

NeuralNetwork · 22-03-2021 01:52PM

There’s a lot of big numbers talk generally about this product ...

I’d rather just see them admit it’s complex and be more open about what the supply chain issues actually are and then maybe there could be more practical and financial support put in place.

I don’t see what the big deal is, given they seem to be very open to licensing it anyway.

JFK2000 · 22-03-2021 02:01PM

Strazdas wrote: »

It looks suspiciously like the AZ UK plants are underperforming if they are having to import from the EU and India.

There was talk that they were producing 1m-2m doses a week but that doesn't stack up for a moment - it looks like it is well below that.

I agree, there has been notably no UK Gov photo ops featuring the baffoon in chief holding a UK produced vaccine.

Think everyone is learning it takes a long time (months and hopefully not years) before plants are snag free and running at their full textbook yield / capacity. The newer RNA vaccines may have a more reliable manufacturing process (no idea not my area, but i'll certainly buy a man a pint to find out .. when i'm allowed *sigh*)

josip · 22-03-2021 02:02PM

Aegir wrote: »

has the UK banned or prevented any exports of vaccines?

They don't need to because they aren't.

fly_agaric · 22-03-2021 02:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There are a few things that are apparently overlooked constantly. firstly why block Pfizer to the UK when Pfizer are seemingly meeting their obligations to the EU.

Yes that seems like a bad idea and rowing back on what the EU/member states decided last year when they were criticisng Trump/USA (that they would not be trying to get a "lock" on production & exclusive access to the vaccines). Also effectively punishing one company for another companies' problems.

Deleted User wrote: »

Secondly there is a presumption that the UK have gotten more than their fair share of AZ but this is ignoring the relative order size, they ordered 100m for a population of 66m, the EU ordered 300m for a population of 440m. Per capita the UK ordered 1.51 doses a head, the EU 0.68. Considering the UK approved a month before the EU and effectively had double the order size, is anyone surprised the EU are behind the curve?

If anything the AZ mess is distracting from the fact that 1 of the other approved vaccines (approved in January, before AZ) has supplied close to nothing and J & J do not look to have much available until June. Too many eggs are seemingly in one basket.

I think your population calculation + referring to the other vaccines is fairly irrelevant.
What you are pointing out arises from differences in what the EU/UK ordered (mixes of vaccines).
I think UK have already gotten far, far more AZ in proportion (have had a greater % of their order filled). Taking the 2 orders together they ordered 1/4 (100 million/ 400 million) of the AZ vaccines produced in EU/UK.

If there is a load of doses of AZ piled up in some factory in the EU, the UK should not be getting any > than 1/4 of it IMO given what they already have gotten out of AZ to date, certainly not all of it as their government seem to be seeking according to the media. There's good reasons they should get none of it (the fact they've already been preferentially supplied by the company & have first call on their own supply source).

Despite what UK press say about European vaccine "hesitancy" and suspicions of AZ vaccine safety + some countries being slow to roll out the stock of AZ they already have, I really think there will be enough willing people in the vulnerable cohorts around the EU to put it to very good use. Loads waiting right here in Ireland.

Pete_Cavan · 22-03-2021 02:11PM

Bambi wrote: »

Lets ask the question again, what part of its contract with the EU is AZ in breach of? The contract is freely available online, stick the ol legal expert in Belgian contract law hat on and go for it.

AZ themselves admit to falling well short of the delivery schedule set out in the contract. What did you think the dispute is over!?

mick087 · 22-03-2021 02:15PM

murphaph wrote: »

I reckon that without proof that the UK government is involved (I reckon it definitely is) in the AZ carry on, the EU should keep this a strictly EU/AZ affair and not move to ban exports of Biontech to the UK because AZ is not delivering on their end. A ban on exports from EU based AZ plants would be entirely appropriate however IMO.

Guilty to proven innocent?
A very dangerous path.

Strazdas · 22-03-2021 02:18PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

AZ themselves admit to falling well short of the delivery schedule set out in the contract. What did you think the dispute is over!?

That's pretty much the elephant in the room (and an elephant the British press are completely ignoring). AZ have delivered a very disappointing number of vaccines this year.

murphaph · 22-03-2021 03:05PM

mick087 wrote: »

Guilty to proven innocent?
A very dangerous path.

Hardly, that's why I suggest it would be better not to interfere in Pfizer shipments to the UK as long as there is no evidence of UK government collusion.

The AZ/EU matter is clear enough. They have woefully failed in their obligations to the EU. There I see no problem in preventing any exports of AZ to the UK until AZ has caught up on missing orders to us.

IRISHSPORTSGUY · 22-03-2021 03:15PM

Strazdas wrote: »

That's pretty much the elephant in the room (and an elephant the British press are completely ignoring). AZ have delivered a very disappointing number of vaccines this year.

To be fair, when the contract was signed last summer that was before Trump's Executive Order on vaccine exports in December and Biden's Defence Production Act in February. I don't think AZ could've predicted they'd go to such extreme lengths.

A large chunk of the supply for Europe was meant to come from the global chain. I assume they intended to skim off America and the Serum Institute (India have recently also started to block exports to 1st world countries).

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments