3 ms·

> The EU also upfront money, to the point that AZ established a timeline and a number of vaccines to be delivered There's a big difference between paying for a

> The EU also upfront money, to the point that AZ established a timeline and a number of vaccines to be delivered There's a big difference between paying for a vaccine to be developed, and paying for a developed vaccine to be manufactured. The EU only did the latter (and at the bare minimum price...) Other countries did the former. > The reality is that maybe EU should have locked production to EU They did, just read the contract. It's not about locking production, it's about paying for development. As an analogy: let's say you designed a new mobile phone, and you sent those designs off to a chinese company to manufacture. The deal is that after filling your order, the chinese company can continue manufacturing the product and sell it to other potential buyers in china. Is it surprising that your order should be filled before those of the other potential buyers? The other buyers had the opportunity to come up with their own designs. They could even have split the cost of developing those designs with you. They didn't do either of those things. Now that manufacturing has hit a short-fall, they don't have a leg to stand on.

libertine 6y ago
You're inferring what's pretty explicit in the contract between AZ and EU - there's no mention of anything about being last for not being part in the development process. You're just making up something to try to justify it, where it says no where that deal. AZ was the one that said it will sell at price of cost. AZ was the one that agreed that it would fulfill EU orders from outside EU production. AZ was the one who agreed that no other contract would compromise EU supply. If AZ had to take into consideration contract celebration dates, development costs participation, and what ever else you're saying that makes you claim that AZ is entitled to breach the contract - then THEY SHOULD HAVE PLACED THAT IN THE CONTRACT. Maybe EU would have looked at other alternatives, or made the required adjustments. AZ has different contracts with different countries and they don't want to disclose that some contracts are being prioritized over others, and putting themselves on the breach of EU contract.

libertine 6y ago

You're inferring what's pretty explicit in the contract between AZ and EU - there's no mention of anything about being last for not being part in the development process. You're just making up something to try to justify it, where it says no where that deal. AZ was the one that said it will sell at price of cost. AZ was the one that agreed that it would fulfill EU orders from outside EU production. AZ was the one who agreed that no other contract would compromise EU supply. If AZ had to take into consideration contract celebration dates, development costs participation, and what ever else you're saying that makes you claim that AZ is entitled to breach the contract - then THEY SHOULD HAVE PLACED THAT IN THE CONTRACT. Maybe EU would have looked at other alternatives, or made the required adjustments. AZ has different contracts with different countries and they don't want to disclose that some contracts are being prioritized over others, and putting themselves on the breach of EU contract.