Re: Coronavirus
 

If it can be stored longer term, then best endeavours may mean storing it for a few months.

The only redress I can think of here is that whatever quantity of vaccines were exported from the EU is replaced with an equivalent exported from outside the EU into the EU. Perhaps the raid on the Belgium factory was to establish the scale of the exports and determine if it was significant or not.

But I'm not a procurement lawyer nor have I seen the AstraZeneca contract so this is pretty speculative. I would encourage AstraZeneca to allow the contract to be published.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Careful you don’t disappear down a rabbit hole here. There’s absolutely no evidence of vaccine from AstraZeneca in Belgium being sent to the UK, and nor is it at all likely to have occurred. Unopened multi-dose vials of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine have a shelf life of 6 months, and that’s one of the reasons they took a chance and started manufacturing it in the UK many weeks before trials concluded it was safe and effective. If AZ was working to its best effort it will have been manufacturing as much vaccine as possible to be ready to meet the EU order as soon as it was approved.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...eca-reg174.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why would it matter what the yields were, they had no reason to lie about it. They could've handed it over to the EU and said "you store it".


This suggests it can be stored for months.
.

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 ----------

I was trying to offer what seemed like a plausible explanation for the EUs whinging. The output from the EU plants has to be stored somewhere, no matter what the yields were.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

In the event of a European judge ruling that AstraZeneca must remove vaccine product from the UK to supply the EU, that's the point at which HMG can add the vaccine to the export ban schedule.

The EU may not believe in first come first served (at least, not when it didn't get there first) but the logic of greatest need shows pretty clearly that we have had the hardest time controlling the pandemic with social measures and must therefore rely most heavily on the vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As the new vaccine (Novavax) is 89% effective and can keep pace with the new, more deadly, mutations, I wonder if they will eventually go back and vaccinate those already injected with the less effective vaccines?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...n-end-schools/

Re: Coronavirus
 

The EU have released a reacted version of the AZ contract.
Link
Page 11 para 5.4, Sneaky of them to talk about EU plants and non-EU plants, but include the UK in the definition of EU manufacturing plants.
Page 12 para 6.2, Also sneaky to say that AZ would not be in breech of the agreement if they were unable to deliver because of competing agreements, but only if those competing agreements were with the EU itself.
Page 23 para 13.1(e), It also says AZ are under no obligation to anybody else to fulfil their agreements, until AFTER the "Initial Europe Doses"(300m) of them has been fulfilled. They are trying to hijack a whole years worth of UK production.:shocked::mad:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah ... that's not going to fly.

Section 5.4 is very clearly there to favour production inside the EU rather than outside it, and to prevent AstraZeneca producing EU vaccine outside of the EU, without first getting written permission from the EU. That clause includes the UK within the definition of the EU, purely to exempt AstraZeneca from needing EU permission to use the facilities there. The inclusion of the UK within the definition of EU is explicitly limited to section 5.4. There's nothing in 5.4 that gives the EU first call on vaccine produced in the UK.

---------- Post added at 12:47 ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 ----------

Pro tip by the way, if you're trying to search the PDF, the only mention of the UK is on one of only three pages in the document that are photocopy images rather than searchable electronic text. If I was a cynical person I might even find that a bit suspicious.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

There doesn't need to be other references to UK, as the UK is included in the definition of EU manufacturing sites.
Hence the EU stance of

Re: Coronavirus
 

Incorrect.

The UK is included in a clause designed to govern where AstraZeneca is *allowed* to produce vaccine for the EU, without further written permission from the EU. AZ is obliged to use its best effort to make the vaccine inside the EU, not outside it. It is a clause designed to ensure they didn't just go off and make it all in a factory in America, or Brazil or wherever.

Furthermore, Section 5.4 limits the definition of EU as including UK, to itself only. It is absolutely explicit on that point. The purpose of the clause is to permit AZ to choose to use UK production facilities without needing additional permission first. The clause does not have the intention of naming existing UK facilities, that are already engaged in fulfilling another contract, as being co-opted to the EU contract. That is why AstraZeneca has in good faith given assurances that it has no other commitments that stand in the way of the fulfilling of the EU contract - because there aren't any.

The EU may bleat that it doesn't believe in first come, first served, but if it comes to having this contract read in court, the prior existence of a contract with HMG, committing UK facilities to UK production, will be of material interest.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is the info I received from Novavax on this Not enough testing done at this time to make an informed judgement, so probably not...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Both 5.1 and 5.4 refer to "Best Reasonable Efforts" to manufacture in the EU. 5.4 is labelled "Manufacturing sites" and includes the UK as being included in the definition of an "EU manufacturing site". You can't really have a different definition of "EU manufacturing site" in one paragraph, to the rest of the document.

13.1 is where AZ said no other agreement "would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;". Supplying the UK and other countries, effectively "impedes" fulfilling the EU order.