What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Pete_Cavan · 24-03-2021 01:39PM

Aegir wrote: »

So the Eu state that they want the initial doses made in the Eu. Astra Zeneca agrees that it has not signed any contracts that would affect that.

Where is your problem?

Nope. "Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Doses in the EU" which is not definitive on being manufactured in the EU alone. Then it goes on to further confirm that by saying "may manufacture the Vaccine in non-EU facilities, if appropriate, to accelerate supply of the Vaccine in Europe".

AZs excuse for not meeting supply as set out in their contract with the EU was "the UK signed first", if that is the case, then that goes against what was stated in 13.1(e).

Not that any of this makes much difference because AZ are incapable of producing vaccines on the scale required anyway. Just pointing out that what you claim to be the case in the contract is not supported by the actual wording of the contract.

murphaph · 24-03-2021 01:42PM

Aegir wrote: »

So the Eu state that they want the initial doses made in the Eu. Astra Zeneca agrees that it has not signed any contracts that would affect that.

Where is your problem?

The contract states that for the purposes of that subsection, that the EU "includes the UK plants" (I'm paraphrasing as I can't be arsed finding the exact line).

Both contracts list the same 4 plants as being the responsible manufacturing sites, 2 in the UK and the one in Belgium and the one in the Netherlands.

IMO AZ have played very fast and loose with the truth. Every passing day seems to throw up a story about this company being less than forthcoming with the facts. Even the US regulator publicly admonished them (very rare) for their data submission over there.

Even last year they were in hot water about exaggerating the efficacy of their vaccine to investors.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 24-03-2021 01:43PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Nope. "Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Doses in the EU" which is not definitive on being manufactured in the EU alone. Then it goes on to further confirm that by saying "may manufacture the Vaccine in non-EU facilities, if appropriate, to accelerate supply of the Vaccine in Europe".

AZs excuse for not meeting supply as set out in their contract with the EU was "the UK signed first", if that is the case, then that goes against what was stated in 13.1(e).

Not that any of this makes much difference because AZ are incapable of producing vaccines on the scale required anyway. Just pointing out that what you claim to be the case in the contract is not supported by the actual wording of the contract.

Except for the point that the EU actually signed first.

AZ didn't make that excuse. Their legions of fans did. I believe they are now claiming that its a term between Oxford and AZ that any UK order is fulfilled first.

AZ haven't offered an excuse at all.

Pete_Cavan · 24-03-2021 01:59PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Except for the point that the EU actually signed first.

AZ didn't make that excuse. Their legions of fans did. I believe they are now claiming that its a term between Oxford and AZ that any UK order is fulfilled first.

AZ haven't offered an excuse at all.

That is the excuse the CEO of AZ used back in January;

https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_pascal_soriot_ceo_astrazeneca_coronavirus_covid_vaccines-284349628/

“The UK agreement was reached in June, three months before the European one. As you could imagine, the UK government said the supply coming out of the UK supply chain would go to the UK first. Basically, that's how it is.
...
As soon as we have reached a sufficient number of vaccinations in the UK, we will be able to use that site to help Europe as well. But the contract with the UK was signed first and the UK, of course, said “you supply us first”, and this is fair enough. This vaccine was developed with the UK government, Oxford and with us as well. As soon as we can, we'll help the EU.

Since then, the UK signing first thing seems to have been proven false (and even if the UK agreement was reached in June, they have a press release on their website from June confirming supply of doses to the EU) and the suggestion that they were to supply the UK first and then help the EU goes against 13.1(e) of their EU contract which was since published.

Strazdas · 24-03-2021 02:03PM

Melanchthon wrote: »

Where the hell did I say that, I said possibly a million or two of UK claimed doses. I did not say they deserved it or that it was being from the COVAX stocks.

There's a weird thing about these two threads, there is constant talk about the British media, brexiteers, tabloids and anti EU trolls. Thing is the people flying of the handle and going on about "da Brits" and getting emotional are the posters that seem to be more aligned with The EU Commission and VdL than the Irish government (you saw Micheal Martin's statement right
https://mobile.twitter.com/rtenews/status/1373994191622176782 )

Much of the "EU messed up with AstraZeneca" thing came entirely from the British media / Brexiteers. They've been pushing this narrative for months now and are still all over it on social media whenever AZ are mentioned. In fact, the only place where AstraZeneca seem popular as a company is among English Brexiteers.

Irish Govt have been extremely criticial of AZ btw. Leo Varadkar and Stephen Donnelly had some very harsh words for them in the Dáil two weeks ago.

24-03-2021 02:12PM

murphaph wrote: »

The contract states that for the purposes of that subsection, that the EU "includes the UK plants" (I'm paraphrasing as I can't be arsed finding the exact line).

clause 5.4, for this section only, the EU includes the UK. That is simply a list of where the vaccine can be made. It goes on to say that if it can't be made in those sites, then AZ have to seek prior approval and the EU reserves the right to identify contract manufacturing companies within the EU that AZ should contract with instead. So the EU can tell where AZ could make it and it is up to them to make it happen. If I was a journalist in Brussels, I would be asking if the EU have done this.

However, there is also a defined term of "Initial Europe Doses" which is the first batch we are still waiting for. Clause 5.1 says that AZ must use best effort to make these within the EU and it is reasonable to presume that because this only includes the UK for clause 5.4, it does not apply to clause 5.1.

That is why I am fully convinced that the EU knew the UK plant was fully booked and this is why AZ could not commit to use best efforts to make the vaccine there, at least initially.

murphaph wrote: »

Both contracts list the same 4 plants as being the responsible manufacturing sites, 2 in the UK and the one in Belgium and the one in the Netherlands.

The plants named really only means that they are approved places the vaccine can be made, it doesn't mean the vaccine "Must" be made there. The logical thing for the eu to do, is find additional plants to add to the list and make sure AZ endeavour to contract with those companies.

murphaph wrote: »

IMO AZ have played very fast and loose with the truth. Every passing day seems to throw up a story about this company being less than forthcoming with the facts. Even the US regulator publicly admonished them (very rare) for their data submission over there.

Even last year they were in hot water about exaggerating the efficacy of their vaccine to investors.

IMO, AZ and the EU Commission have played fast and loose with the truth.

24-03-2021 02:18PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

the suggestion that they were to supply the UK first and then help the EU goes against 13.1(e) of their EU contract which was since published.

explain how. (presuming you are refering to clause 13.1 (e)

astrofool · 24-03-2021 02:22PM

Aegir wrote: »

The logical thing for the eu to do, is find additional plants to add to the list and make sure AZ endeavour to contract with those companies.

The logical thing for the EU is to provide more plants for AZ to mess up? I'd say there's an infinitesimally small chance of that happening, and any further plants would end up being used by J&J or Sputnik. The outcome of all this will likely be that the UK has to live within it's means on it's local production, and the EU will take supply from the EU plants until AZ catches up with their contracted delivery schedule.

The interesting bit would be if Pfizer supply to the UK would be constrained until the UK delivered a reciprocal amount of AZ vaccine from their own plants, I don't believe the EU will go as far as the UK has here and Pfizer delivery will remain mostly unaffected.

Dyr · 24-03-2021 02:22PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Except for the point that the EU actually signed first.

AZ didn't make that excuse. Their legions of fans did. I believe they are now claiming that its a term between Oxford and AZ that any UK order is fulfilled first.

AZ haven't offered an excuse at all.

It's not a legion of fans claiming anything there buddy, you've been fairly reticent to actually state where in the contract with the EU AZ have been in breach but not much forthcoming. I'd rather take the words of a people who know what they're on about over an EU "fan" to use your own term

https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-europe-astrazeneca-belgium-law-enforce-contract/

"The U.K. has not been so transparent with its own contract, but POLITICO has spoken to people who have seen it, allowing a comparison between the two. It suggests that while both documents have legal bite, the EU document places lofty aspirations above swift enforceability. That may be one reason why, when the company found itself in the position of not having enough vaccines to fulfil its order with the EU, it didn't simply redirect all its doses made in the U.K. to Brussels.

For the U.K., having specific contractual provisions built upon a strategy to drastically scale-up domestic vaccine manufacturing was the brainchild of the government's Chief Scientific Advisor Patrick Valance, according to an official familiar with the AstraZeneca deal’s development.

According to people who have seen it, the British contract is explicit about the country's claim to doses created within its domestic supply chain and the capacity of domestic manufacturing. It stipulates that the needs of U.K. citizens must be met first. The EU document aims for something similar but is less specific and precise about manufacturing capacity."

And most importantly:

"In the event of a dispute, how and where a contract can be litigated matters — that might explain why the company is treating the two orders differently. English contracts are interpreted by British courts as, by-and-large, doing exactly what they say, in a manner like how some other legal systems might read statute law, said contract expert Van Calster.

Belgian contract law is very different, where the document is more open to interpretation and good faith is an important consideration. What's more, the country's sluggish court system is not ideally suited to a race for doses. "

Heres the bitter reality, if the EU had anything in their contract that they could use to force AZ to do their bidding they would have used it by now, they don't. The Brits made damn sure they had and it paid off for them, thats why half their adult population is vaccinated. That's why the EC is making threats about export bans. Thats why the Germans have realised that threatening AZ is a busted flush and now want Sputnik approved for EU use. The Germans are willing to eat a ton of humble pie just to save lives. The EU and their "legion of fans" will continue on unrepetent, regardless of human cost. To do otherwise might be to admit that the EUs ever closer union approach to all problems is not always the answer.

Mitch Connor · 24-03-2021 02:25PM

Aegir wrote: »

clause 5.4, for this section only, the EU includes the UK. That is simply a list of where the vaccine can be made. It goes on to say that if it can't be made in those sites, then AZ have to seek prior approval and the EU reserves the right to identify contract manufacturing companies within the EU that AZ should contract with instead. So the EU can tell where AZ could make it and it is up to them to make it happen. If I was a journalist in Brussels, I would be asking if the EU have done this.

However, there is also a defined term of "Initial Europe Doses" which is the first batch we are still waiting for. Clause 5.1 says that AZ must use best effort to make these within the EU and it is reasonable to presume that because this only includes the UK for clause 5.4, it does not apply to clause 5.1.

That is why I am fully convinced that the EU knew the UK plant was fully booked and this is why AZ could not commit to use best efforts to make the vaccine there, at least initially.

The plants named really only means that they are approved places the vaccine can be made, it doesn't mean the vaccine "Must" be made there. The logical thing for the eu to do, is find additional plants to add to the list and make sure AZ endeavour to contract with those companies.

IMO, AZ and the EU Commission have played fast and loose with the truth.

Are you certain 5.4 and 5.1 aren't related?

From my reading of it 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 relate to delivery of doses (quantities and timing). 5.4 relates to manufacture of doses.

5.1 is Initial Doses.
5.2 is the secondary order.
5.3 is where the EU have the option to order an additional amount of doses for a later period
I don't have the contract in front of me so I am going by memory, but I am certain i have the jist of it.

None of those sections, iirc, relate to the manufacturing of the doses.

From my reading, 5.4 relates to all the previous parts - in terms of manufacturing. As in UK is considered as part of the EU as far as manufacturing, but is not considered part of the EU in terms of the doses and deliveries to the EU.

24-03-2021 02:41PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Are you certain 5.4 and 5.1 aren't related?

From my reading of it 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 relate to delivery of doses (quantities and timing). 5.4 relates to manufacture of doses.

5.1 is Initial Doses.
5.2 is the secondary order.
5.3 is where the EU have the option to order an additional amount of doses for a later period
I don't have the contract in front of me so I am going by memory, but I am certain i have the jist of it.

None of those sections, iirc, relate to the manufacturing of the doses.

From my reading, 5.4 relates to all the previous parts - in terms of manufacturing. As in UK is considered as part of the EU as far as manufacturing, but is not considered part of the EU in terms of the doses and deliveries to the EU.

I think is is poorly drafted to be honest. If they are refering to distribution within the EU, it should really say Participating Member States.

The telling thing though in my opinion, is Schedule A where AZ are obliged to provide the names of contracted suppliers who will be manufacturing the Initial Doses. If AZ then included the UK sites on this list, then they are fault, if they didn't then the EU can't really complain.

Melanchthon · 24-03-2021 02:44PM

astrofool wrote: »

"UK claimed doses" implies that the UK was claiming doses. So you're in agreement that the UK shouldn't get any of those vaccines? Great.

No I am saying the UK is probably going to claim some doses of its related to Halix plant manufacturing.

That's a statement of an opinion of a likely action.

If I said "it's a circuit claimed by Apple to be their IP in the Samsung phone", or "Crimea is a part of Russian Claimed territory" or "Argentina claim the Falklands".

It's nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of it.

Does it make one Putin Worshipping AppleFanboy Argentinian to make those statements?

24-03-2021 02:51PM

I'm sure this has been posted before, but this article sums up the situation and why the UK has been more successful with AstraZeneca https://www.politico.eu/article/after-failing-to-deliver-astrazeneca-rethinks-eu-coronavirus-vaccine-supply-chain/

In particular, this bit

Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides has claimed it wasn’t a queue at the butcher shop, "but the EU has treated it like that, like they can just place an order for the sausages and they’ll come," the person said. “That’s not what the U.K. has done. They helped the butcher buy a machine, helped it with staff, helped it with farming the pigs, helped it develop the recipe.”

Of the EU’s strategy, they said: “It's incredibly naive: These are the hardest manufacturing challenges the world has ever faced.”

To be honest, I don't think contracts, what they say and when they were signed has anything to do with it. It is how the two different contracts were managed

astrofool · 24-03-2021 02:56PM

Melanchthon wrote: »

No I am saying the UK is probably going to claim some doses of its related to Halix plant manufacturing.

Do you think the UK should be allowed access to further EU manufactured vaccine while EU deliveries remain behind schedule?

Aegir wrote: »

I'm sure this has been posted before, but this article sums up the situation and why the UK has been more successful with AstraZeneca https://www.politico.eu/article/after-failing-to-deliver-astrazeneca-rethinks-eu-coronavirus-vaccine-supply-chain/

In particular, this bit

To be honest, I don't think contracts, what they say and when they were signed has anything to do with it. It is how the two different contracts were managed

I think since it's come out that the UK plants also way behind schedule on manufacturing capacity as well, that the contents of the article aren't up to date with the facts anymore, and can mostly be dismissed at this stage.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 24-03-2021 02:58PM

Bambi wrote: »

It's not a legion of fans claiming anything there buddy, you've been fairly reticent to actually state where in the contract with the EU AZ have been in breach but not much forthcoming. I'd rather take the words of a people who know what they're on about over an EU "fan" to use your own terml

My god.

1+1=2

Its not meetings its delivery obligations.

Az will make best reasonable efforts to manufacture in the EU (including the uk for the purposes of discussion or manufacturing) .

Schedule a is mainly redacted but it mentions factories in Europe and the UK for supplying us.

AZ is clearly not making best reasonable efforts to supply europe. Its barely making any effort. Remember the definition of best effort.

1.9. “Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and

robinph · 24-03-2021 03:44PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

1.9. “Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and

What does that really mean though? Nothing to say what it means other than possibly don't start using your plant to make Botox injections instead for a bit for example. If they are making vaccines and sending them out then that is reasonable. If they are sitting around doing nothing or deciding to make something else which they could sell for more money then that isn't reasonable in the current pandemic situation.... but that isn't what's happening.

It's a bit of a nonsense clause. Says nothing about how they should be sharing their production out among various customers, which is probably what various customers should have looked to have written down to enforce some fair distribution. Just says that Astra Zeneca promise to make vaccines as fast as they can.

Wolf359f · 24-03-2021 03:52PM

Reuters reporting India is now blocking large export orders for the foreseeable future. What's AZ gonna do, try and fill orders relying on SII from EU factories now?

CIARAN_BOYLE · 24-03-2021 03:53PM

robinph wrote: »

What does that really mean though? Nothing to say what it means other than possibly don't start using your plant to make Botox injections instead for a bit for example. If they are making vaccines and sending them out then that is reasonable. If they are sitting around doing nothing or deciding to make something else which they could sell for more money then that isn't reasonable in the current pandemic situation.... but that isn't what's happening.

It's a bit of a nonsense clause. Says nothing about how they should be sharing their production out among various customers, which is probably what various customers should have looked to have written down to enforce some fair distribution. Just says that Astra Zeneca promise to make vaccines as fast as they can.

That's a definition of best effort. It basically means this is urgent you can't do the minimum and call it best effort.

Elsewhere Astra Zenaca commit to delivery dates which they have to make best effort to meet.

fly_agaric · 24-03-2021 03:57PM

robinph wrote: »

Says nothing about how they should be sharing their production out among various customers, which is probably what various customers should have looked to have written down to enforce some fair distribution.

True. I don't think the UK govt. would have liked that much though. Not their style, certainly not as regards relations with the EU.
It seems to have gotten a leg up and is the "golden child" AZ customer vs the EU, erm..."red headed step child"!

24-03-2021 04:05PM

Aegir wrote: »

I think is is poorly drafted to be honest. If they are refering to distribution within the EU, it should really say Participating Member States.

The telling thing though in my opinion, is Schedule A where AZ are obliged to provide the names of contracted suppliers who will be manufacturing the Initial Doses. If AZ then included the UK sites on this list, then they are fault, if they didn't then the EU can't really complain.

So the EU had Lionel Hutz and AZ had Johnnie Cochran?

robinph · 24-03-2021 04:10PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

That's a definition of best effort. It basically means this is urgent you can't do the minimum and call it best effort.

Elsewhere Astra Zenaca commit to delivery dates which they have to make best effort to meet.

But nothing really is provable one way or the other. If they say "we're doing everything we can as quick as we can" then unless the other side can prove that they were instead playing solitaire on their PCs then there isn't much which can be done about it.

The bit about dates and delivery quantities are things which you can say it did or didn't happen, proving a "best effort" or not is a different matter.

24-03-2021 04:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So the EU had Lionel Hutz and AZ had Johnnie Cochran?

Both parties are responsible for the contract, that's why they both sign it.

I'm reading in the way i would a a contract in Irish or English law though, Belgian law is different. I am open to correction, but I don't think the idea of an Entire Agreement clause works in Belgian law so there may be other documents that would also be relied on.

24-03-2021 04:14PM

robinph wrote: »

But nothing really is provable one way or the other. If they say "we're doing everything we can as quick as we can" then unless the other side can prove that they were instead playing solitaire on their PCs then there isn't much which can be done about it.

The bit about dates and delivery quantities are things which you can say it did or didn't happen, proving a "best effort" or not is a different matter.

I guess it is even harder when you have a degree of uncertainty in the manufacturing process, with regards the yield from a batch.

Melanchthon · 24-03-2021 04:16PM

astrofool wrote: »

Do you think the UK should be allowed access to further EU manufactured vaccine while EU deliveries remain behind schedule?

Keeping in mind I don't understand contract law, and neither do most the rest of you really at the level we are talking about. Which might be important particularly due to the various entities involved and sub contractors.

It would be good if the UK released a lot more information about funding contracts and agreements and supports including the stuff that came before the main contract.
E.g we know there was funding given to the Halix plant but was it just for a tiny load of vaccine for the trial runs or was it significant. Does the Halix plant/sub contractor have an agreement to supply the UK with vaccines that predates the Oxford-Astra Zeneca partnership.

I think personally the likely easiest solution is too split it 20/80 UK Vs EU or a ratio like that. I think M Martin is right that as a place that has loads of pharma medical devices production etc we need to make sure a signal isn't sent that the EU isn't a place to invest if you want to export this stuff globally. Remember back when France and other places were seizing other countries PPE orders, Ireland which makes loads of masks and ventilators never did and it wasn't even a topic of conversation officially.

If it's about simply the EU needs the doses and too hell with contracts and free trade, then it makes sense to confiscate all the Astra Zeneca and not make exceptions for Canada and COVAX. It's like there is all this rage about Astra and Moderna which also isn't delivering is ignored because they have been upfront about it, being upfront doesn't increase the amount of vaccines available it just makes things better politically.

In general I think that the Commission has tried to be both cheap , morally self righteous (the condemning of the USA last year but when things start going bad suddenly it's different), and likely inexperienced. Astra Zeneca being dodgy and failing to produce the vast amount of doses they over promised doesn't change that. Simplist way to highlight this is to simply look at the figures per capita between USA, EU and UK and see how little the EU put into this effort.

Ps if I was German I would be raging as they actually had early contract negotiations, pumped money into a vaccine that's delivered great results, funded research and more.

Edit: anyway it looks like the vaccine is for the EU and COVAX, which makes sense as they would have sent it as vaccine product to Wrexham to be bottled if it was for the UK rather than Italy.

astrofool · 24-03-2021 04:59PM

Melanchthon wrote: »

Keeping in mind I don't understand contract law, and neither do most the rest of you really at the level we are talking about. Which might be important particularly due to the various entities involved and sub contractors.

Just to break it all down, I don't believe the EU manufacturing should be supplying anything other than the bare minimum needed to allow the UK second doses to stay on schedule for the AZ vaccine (and that the UK would have to avoid shenanigans like giving them as first doses anyway). I believe that the EU will define best effort as if the vials are manufactured and ready to go, that they fulfil the EU order first from EU factories. They should also look at constraining and backending the Pfizer deliveries to the UK until the EU % vaccinated catches up to the UK. If the UK wants to start reciprocating in shipments, then Pfizer supply can remain as normal. Covax should be unaffected, unless it's found going to a country with ample supply (e.g. Chile or UAE for example).

The EU won't go that far, they could, but they won't. The fig leaf of "OK we'll just take 20% of your production" is just funny.

I also don't think anyone could say that the commission is being "cheap", they negotiated a good price per shot (good negotiators, bad negotiators seemingly), but also put €300M into AZ that's been used to fund a factory for UK supply.

Just on this bit:

Melanchthon wrote: »

Simplist way to highlight this is to simply look at the figures per capita between USA, EU and UK and see how little the EU put into this effort.

If Moderna failed, and Sanofi succeeded, the figures would likely be the opposite way around

Strazdas · 24-03-2021 05:02PM

Wolf359f wrote: »

Reuters reporting India is now blocking large export orders for the foreseeable future. What's AZ gonna do, try and fill orders relying on SII from EU factories now?

Raises the question.....are the UK going to start to run short of AZ supplies in the near future? Both the EU and India starting to put the pressure on.

Melanchthon · 24-03-2021 05:37PM

astrofool wrote: »

They should also look at constraining and backending the Pfizer deliveries to the UK until the EU % vaccinated catches up to the UK. If the UK wants to start reciprocating in shipments, then Pfizer supply can remain as normal. Covax should be unaffected, unless it's found going to a country with ample supply (e.g. Chile or UAE for example).

If the goal is to speed up EU vaccination rates why does it matter where it's going?

I think restricting Pfizer is a very very bad idea in particular for Ireland as we are a hub for biotech/medical devices, Pfizer have been fulfilling their contracts and the EU was very vocal about how bad vaccine nationalism is. Astra Zeneca is a different argument as they have under delivered and may have lied about the no prior commitments part.

astrofool wrote: »

The EU won't go that far, they could, but they won't. The fig leaf of "OK we'll just take 20% of your production" is just funny.

It depends on what the contracts and funding say though doesn't it? Like I have not understood why Astra Zeneca a company that's mainly European would go through all this if there isn't something the UK is holding over them in terms of contracts. The 20/80 split is just a offhand figure that may satisfy both parties.

astrofool wrote: »

I also don't think anyone could say that the commission is being "cheap", they negotiated a good price per shot (good negotiators, bad negotiators seemingly), but also put €300M into AZ that's been used to fund a factory for UK supply.

Just on this bit:

If Moderna failed, and Sanofi succeeded, the figures would likely be the opposite way around

You were saying ðŸ€”

In total, the UK and US have each spent about seven times more upfront, per capita, on vaccine development, procurement and production than the European bloc

So spending 7 times less isn't being cheap???

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/c9bbc753-97fb-493a-bbb6-dd97a7c4b807

astrofool · 24-03-2021 06:15PM

Just watching the BBC right now, and the EU problem is put as "getting vaccines into arms" as if it's a rollout problem rather than a supply issue caused by AZ messing about the EU. Thierry Breton put it most elegantly that if the pharma companies were sending out the vaccines as contracted, then the EU and UK vaccination rate would be the same.

EU already had the manufacturing and funding for pharma companies, the UK didn't, hence a lot of the difference in funding, the EU is spending that per capita all the time.

If the goal is to speed up EU vaccination rates why does it matter where it's going?

Luckily for the world, the EU isn't driven by 'GREED' to the same level that Boris has been.

JTMan · 24-03-2021 06:42PM

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1374775467279024137

Stark · 24-03-2021 07:01PM

JTMan wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1374775467279024137

I hate that guy, he loves his ALL CAPS scaremongering.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments