Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
Andrew, I don't know what you do for a living. But I live in the world of projects. Risk analysis and risk mitigation are matters of expertise ahead of any feared event. My projects also involve safety of life - and if the vaccine isn't in that class, my whatsit's a kipper.
In the EU vaccine case, one of the feared events is (should be in any competent organisation) late/non-delivery. The EC fupped badly here and then started a campaign to shake the blame off their shoulders,
It's no good you trading nonsense here by looking at the square root of a few words. Nobody agrees with you (that might provoke a few Remainers!).
|
I'm discussing this around facts, not on politics. If you wish to steer it in the latter direction that's your choice but if you're confident about your assertions then I question the need to do so.
I'm familiar with risk mitigation and I've explained how the EU and UK have similarly achieved this to the extent that it was possible - multiple suppliers and multiple plants. I'm not sure what I can do further here.
Only Captain Hindsight could have forseen that a reputable multinational company could not fufill its contracts so badly. That's a risk that anyone signing a contract with AstraZeneca and indeed the other manufacturers took.
I'll repeat again that I accept the EU procurement plan was not as agile as the UK's and I've never argued otherwise. But that does not take away from the fact that your assertions which I understand to be:
- The EU knew that when it signed the AstraZeneca contract that it could not be fufilled
- The EU did not mitigate the risks
I view as being factually incorrect.