Coronavirus

Originally Posted by nomadking

The UK paid for the development of the AZ vaccine. Without the UK it wouldn't be at the advanced stage of production. It is also made in the EU under contract and permission of Oxford, AZ,(and the UK?).

It is indeed also made in the EU, but the problem is because the EU order for the AZ vaccine came three months later than the UK’s order, setting up manufacturing in the EU is running three months behind the UK. Teething troubles are a routine part of the set up, and these tend to result in much lower manufacturing yields in the early weeks of production.

The UK’s deal specifies that UK production is initially for UK use. This is unsurprising given that AZ is manufacturing a vaccine invented by Oxford University with funding from the UK government. The EU can’t get hold of it any earlier than AZ has already planned, no matter how loudly it squeals.

[pip08456]

I know it's RT but it's an interesting take.

Covid-19 reverse psychology: Did Johnson play the left by ‘pretending’ he didn’t want a lockdown so it could get public support?

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/504818-covi...ology-johnson/

Originally Posted by pip08456

I know it's RT but it's an interesting take.



https://www.rt.com/op-ed/504818-covi...ology-johnson/

It’s far too late at night for me to go sifting through that looking for its true agenda (and it’s paid for by Vlad of the KGB, so it definitely has one, somewhere), however I’m intrigued to learn that the Telegraph has proof of just how early on HMG signed the ad agency that produced the lockdown messaging. It certainly proves they believed a major public information campaign was going to be necessary at some point, though I think it’s a bit of a stretch to conclude that any apparent signalling of a herd immunity strategy was therefore mere reverse psychology.

[nomadking]

Nobody actually wants a lockdown, it's a question of whether one is needed or not.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Coronavirus: EU demands UK-made AstraZeneca vaccine doses

The EU has urged pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca to supply it with more doses of its Covid-19 vaccine from UK plants, amid a row over shortages.

Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides said the company was wrong to say its agreement with the EU was non-binding.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55822602

Smacks of a panicked response following the EU's own delays to approving use.

Not an EU vs UK issue at all.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

Smacks of a panicked response following the EU's own delays to approving use.

Not an EU vs UK issue at all.

It is now! It's just that the Guvmin won't allow itself to be drawn on this.

Originally Posted by Angua

Smacks of a panicked response following the EU's own delays to approving use.

Not an EU vs UK issue at all.

Of course it is.

AstraZeneca put up its CEO for an interview earlier this week to let it be known that the entire basis on which it was given the vaccine formula by Oxford university was that it would produce it, at cost, for the UK, in the UK, in the first instance.

The EU is not a completely brainless outfit - it is well aware that in insisting on diverting UK produced vaccine, it is demanding that AstraZeneca breach a contract it has explicitly stated that it has with the UK government.

Pascal Soirot went on the record with his comments just a day before AstraZeneca management met EU officials. There is no way he didn't know they were going to be asked to divert vaccines that are produced in the UK and are therefore factored in to the UK government's public vaccination plan. There is no way the EU does not understand that its demands (if met) have direct consequences for that plan.

Just because the EU and UK are not publicly talking face to face at this point does not mean this is not an intensely political issue - nor that informal, private contact hasn't occurred. AstraZeneca has presented the UK government as the immovable reason why it won't give the EU vaccine stock from the UK. So it is going to have to get overtly political before long, unless the EU quietly backs off and agrees to assist AZ in getting its European production up to full whack, in order to supply the EU, which is what AZ has said was its plan all along.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 ----------

Gove has been out on manoeuvres this morning. He's told BBC R4's Today programme that UK-made vaccine that has been factored into our vaccination schedule will not be getting exported to the EU:

Mr Gove said: "We must make sure that we continue with the effective acceleration of our vaccination programme. That relies on the supply schedule that has been agreed to be honoured. That's the first and most important thing.

"But secondarily I'm sure we all want to do everything possible to make sure that as many people in countries which are our friends and neighbours are vaccinated and I think we best achieve that through dialogue and co-operation and friendship," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Pressed on whether the government will allow vaccines to go to the EU, he said: "No, the critical thing is we must make sure that the schedule that has been agreed and on which our vaccination programme has been based and planned goes ahead.

"It is the case that the supplies that have been planned, paid for and scheduled should continue, absolutely. There will be no interruption to that."

So, the UK is:

1. Not going to allow vaccine scheduled to be used in the UK to be exported
2. Wants to do what it can to help the EU out of the mess it has caused itself thanks to its stuttering, indecisive procurement policy;
3. Has nevertheless warned the EU that "friendship" is key ... that's a pretty strong veiled demand that the European Commission stop making ludicrous demands for UK vaccine to be exported for its use.

He has definitely left some wriggle room however. If AstraZeneca can increase UK production beyond the UK government's requirements to meet its vaccination programme timetable, there is nothing in Gove's comments to suggest that can't be sent to Brussels to help them out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55838272

If we decide to help the EU out it should be Ireland first because of the common travel area and as a sign of good will.

Originally Posted by Damien

If we decide to help the EU out it should be Ireland first because of the common travel area and as a sign of good will.

Agreed. And also because it would be interesting to see how strong Ireland's commitment to the pan-EU procurement programme actually is, if a shipment of vaccine from the UK arrives for their direct use. Would they share it out? Would their population stand for it? The possibilities are delicious ...

[jfman]

Presumably if you leave the emotive issue of who is involved out of it a private sector entity has failed to fulfill orders and now has to decide with limited resource how, where and when to fulfil orders.

I presume that comes down to £££.

As always my cynicism around the UK media makes me wonder what news stories are being covered up right now as nationalism is deployed as a distraction.

Either the EU claims hold up or they don't, if they don't then AZ aren't in breach of contract. If they do, it's up to AZ to decide which contract to breach and now.

Originally Posted by Chris

Agreed. And also because it would be interesting to see how strong Ireland's commitment to the pan-EU procurement programme actually is, if a shipment of vaccine from the UK arrives for their direct use. Would they share it out? Would their population stand for it? The possibilities are delicious ...

Oh I think they would easily accept it no question and the population wouldn't mind at all.

I would imagine the EU procurement program isn't popular anyway but even so there is an obvious cop-out by saying it's about the Common Travel Area and Northern Ireland.

Originally Posted by jfman

Presumably if you leave the emotive issue of who is involved out of it a private sector entity has failed to fulfill orders and now has to decide with limited resource how, where and when to fulfil orders.

I presume that comes down to £££.

As always my cynicism around the UK media makes me wonder what news stories are being covered up right now as nationalism is deployed as a distraction.

Either the EU claims hold up or they don't, if they don't then AZ aren't in breach of contract. If they do, it's up to AZ to decide which contract to breach and now.

If you're concerned about UK media reporting you should read the article linked by Andrew earlier in the week. It's in an Italian newspaper, La Repubblica (provided in English). In the interview, Pascal Soirot, the CEO of AstraZeneca, insists that the company has not failed to fulfil orders. He says the EU's initial demands on quantity and timescale were barely achievable on a best case scenario and AstraZeneca therefore contracted with them on a 'best effort' basis. They expect it to take time to get maximum yield out of a new factory. There have indeed been delays at the new plants within the EU.

The story has been brewing all week but the UK media is really only waking up to it now, and Gove's comments to the Today programme are the first time anyone within the UK government has explicitly waded into the issue.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Presumably if you leave the emotive issue of who is involved out of it a private sector entity has failed to fulfill orders and now has to decide with limited resource how, where and when to fulfil orders.

I presume that comes down to £££.

As always my cynicism around the UK media makes me wonder what news stories are being covered up right now as nationalism is deployed as a distraction.

Either the EU claims hold up or they don't, if they don't then AZ aren't in breach of contract. If they do, it's up to AZ to decide which contract to breach and now.

The AZ vaccine is being supplied to whoever, AT COST. That is specified in the agreement with Oxford University.

They signed a contract saying they would deliver 30m doses to the UK by last September. As that has yet to happen, the EU is still way behind the UK in the queue. A business would always be expected to prioritise an order with an earlier "supply by" date, UK Sept 2020 vs EU April 2021.

The fact that the UK signed a contract wasn't hidden for 3 months, therefore the EU upon hearing the UK news, could've then jumped in right after the UK.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

If you're concerned about UK media reporting you should read the article linked by Andrew earlier in the week. It's in an Italian newspaper, La Repubblica (provided in English). In the interview, Pascal Soirot, the CEO of AstraZeneca, insists that the company has not failed to fulfil orders. He says the EU's initial demands on quantity and timescale were barely achievable on a best case scenario and AstraZeneca therefore contracted with them on a 'best effort' basis. They expect it to take time to get maximum yield out of a new factory. There have indeed been delays at the new plants within the EU.

The story has been brewing all week but the UK media is really only waking up to it now, and Gove's comments to the Today programme are the first time anyone within the UK government has explicitly waded into the issue.

I'd expect the CEO of a company to defend their position robustly. I'd be reluctant to necessarily take that at face value especially when a customer says the opposite.

Equally, the customer have a public relations interest in robustly defending their position.

I don't really see the complexity here - the contracts either say one thing or they don't. But let's distract people in the meantime waving some flags.

---------- Post added at 11:56 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

The AZ vaccine is being supplied to whoever, AT COST. That is specified in the agreement with Oxford University.

They signed a contract saying they would deliver 30m doses to the UK by last September. As that has yet to happen, the EU is still way behind the UK in the queue. A business would always be expected to prioritise an order with an earlier "supply by" date, UK Sept 2020 vs EU April 2021.

The fact that the UK signed a contract wasn't hidden for 3 months, therefore the EU upon hearing the UK news, could've then jumped in right after the UK.

As the EU say, they're not in a queue down the butchers. AZ have contracts that if they clearly present prioritisation and acknowledge risks to supply are sound.

Agreeing to supply at cost is particularly problematic if there are penalties linked to being unable to supply elsewhere. Very quickly your financial considerations swing to that customer if your contracts haven't covered yourself.

If you take flags and the fact it's one of the most important products of our lifetimes there's cold hard underlying capitalism and economics.

It's really not our concern whatever deal AZ have with the EU. That's between them and the EU.

Our concern is that the EU doesn't block vaccines we have already ordered being delivered or that AZ send vaccines we already have meant for U.K delivery to the EU to make up for whatever issues exist their end.

As long as our deal is being honoured from each company we've ordered from then then we can stay out of it.