7 ms·

France and Germany threaten AstraZeneca over vaccine shortage

19 points by ogogmad 6y ago

llarsson 6y ago
Needlessly sensationalist. The EU just refers to the contract and that, if the current production shortage negatively impacts the EU deliveries disproportionately, there will be consequences. As per the contacts, apparently. Nothing interesting to see here, just typical Sunday reporting. Have to find something to put in the paper.
ehvatum 6y ago
EU: “These are serious accusations, so it is not done lightly. I am not saying that there is a problem but if there is a problem and that we have favoured other destinations, other countries – for example the UK over us – then we will defend our interests.” Reality: “The UK government signed a contract with AstraZeneca three months before the commission.” Why does the EU have to be so stupid?
- libertine 6y ago
  >Reality: “The UK government signed a contract with AstraZeneca three months before the commission.” I keep seeing this argument being thrown around, the other is that the UK funded vaccine research - like any of this invalidates the contract and deadlines signed between EU and AZ.
  - NoPie 6y ago
    Contracts are complicated and disputed what they really mean. But it doesn't look that AstraZeneca is acting in bad faith. The UK invested 3 months sooner and that enabled AstraZeneca to solve manufacturing issues sooner. The same issues happened in the EU sites but those were started later, so unfortunately nothing can be done about this. Politicians have a magic thinking that because they will demand fulfilment of the contract, the extra doses will miraculously appear. It's not how it works, the only way to get them is to take them away from the UK. It might or might not be fair to share UK doses with EU considering that this is a global pandemic but that is completely different discussion unrelated to the signed contracts. Looking is at this from legal perspective only is not helpful. The following events, like the EU backtracking on North Ireland export ban, clearly show this. We need cooler heads prevailing.
    - thefounder 6y ago
      So all the agreements go down to who signed first gets priority regardless of whatever was agreed/signed?
      - NoPie 6y ago
        I would say it is fair. The problem is the manufacturing process. The vaccine is slowly grown in large volume bioreactors. If you need long time from investment till finished product, then obviously people who invested sooner can expect that they receive the product before those who invested only now. What happened is that both the first UK and the first EU batch had a low yield. The problems were (hopefully) fixed but it will be months before the next batch will be ready. If the EU had invested sooner, these problems might have been already fixed by now. The UK risked more with earlier investment, so they should get some payout from the risk. From the moral side I think that it would be fair for the UK to send some vaccine supplies to the EU to show solidarity. Maybe they will do if we talk about this more dispassionately. On the other hand, legal threats are not going to work and may only spoil relationships.
        thefounder 6y ago
        >> I would say it is fair. What has "fair" to do with an agreement/contract?
        NoPie 6y ago
        Exactly, it has nothing to do with the contract. If I make an agreement to delivery 100 million vaccine doses tomorrow and then fail to do it, so what? Concentrate on real issues, on what we can or cannot do, not on some lawyers' fantasies.
        CogitoCogito 6y ago
        Is AZ decreasing their delivery to the UK and Europe by the same percentage? edit: I find the downvotes without explanation a bit depressing. I'm replying to a post containing this: > Concentrate on real issues, on what we can or cannot do, not on some lawyers' fantasies. Decreasing UK and Euro deliveries equally is clearly something that we can do and not some legal fantasy.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  This is a completely reasonable question and the contract timing has nothing to do with it. European production of the AZ vaccine has fallen short, and the rest of their sourcing options fell through as well. Even if you accept that AZ has country based supply chains with different priorities, it still makes sense that the EU would want to know if the EU production is being shipped to other locations.
Bellamy 6y ago
I can't believe the stupidity of people believing these big pharma companies. "Yes, we can deliver." "No, we don't take any responsibility if something goes wrong." "Yes, the contract stays as a secret for public." "Yes, it's absolutely safe." "No, you can't sue us if something goes wrong." "Yes, the fastest vaccine approved before was four years" "No, no discount. We need to make profit."
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Discount? These jabs are extremely cheap compared to the costs of the shutdowns. Even at $1000 per patient it would be a no-brainer.
- ricardo81 6y ago
  I believe the AZ contract with the EU provides the vaccines "at cost".
Proven 6y ago
The EU is a joke. In all likelihood they can kiss AZ's ass. AZ committed to delivering 100 million doses to the UK and even though 100% of what's left may be due to the EU, that may amount to little. These are preemptive attacks to divert attention from the months of wasted time those fools spent processing paperwork and translating it into 30 languages, lol.
dependsontheq 6y ago
Remember that Astra Zeneca was supposed to manufacture for their contract before the EMA decision. Their first notice that they would only deliver a small part of the planned total was one week before the EMA decision. So I don't fault AstraZeneca if something went wrong at their plant, but imagine they would have told everybody in December that they have problems, there is no lack of production plants in the EU, alternatives might have been possible. This is no way to handle such a sensitive issue. Did the EU commission act brilliantly all the way... probably not, but it's not like AstraZeneca gave them a chance to act brilliant.

19 points by ogogmad 6y ago

Needlessly sensationalist. The EU just refers to the contract and that, if the current production shortage negatively impacts the EU deliveries disproportionately, there will be consequences. As per the contacts, apparently. Nothing interesting to see here, just typical Sunday reporting. Have to find something to put in the paper.

ehvatum 6y ago

EU: “These are serious accusations, so it is not done lightly. I am not saying that there is a problem but if there is a problem and that we have favoured other destinations, other countries – for example the UK over us – then we will defend our interests.” Reality: “The UK government signed a contract with AstraZeneca three months before the commission.” Why does the EU have to be so stupid?

libertine 6y ago
>Reality: “The UK government signed a contract with AstraZeneca three months before the commission.” I keep seeing this argument being thrown around, the other is that the UK funded vaccine research - like any of this invalidates the contract and deadlines signed between EU and AZ.
- NoPie 6y ago
  Contracts are complicated and disputed what they really mean. But it doesn't look that AstraZeneca is acting in bad faith. The UK invested 3 months sooner and that enabled AstraZeneca to solve manufacturing issues sooner. The same issues happened in the EU sites but those were started later, so unfortunately nothing can be done about this. Politicians have a magic thinking that because they will demand fulfilment of the contract, the extra doses will miraculously appear. It's not how it works, the only way to get them is to take them away from the UK. It might or might not be fair to share UK doses with EU considering that this is a global pandemic but that is completely different discussion unrelated to the signed contracts. Looking is at this from legal perspective only is not helpful. The following events, like the EU backtracking on North Ireland export ban, clearly show this. We need cooler heads prevailing.
  - thefounder 6y ago
    So all the agreements go down to who signed first gets priority regardless of whatever was agreed/signed?
    - NoPie 6y ago
      I would say it is fair. The problem is the manufacturing process. The vaccine is slowly grown in large volume bioreactors. If you need long time from investment till finished product, then obviously people who invested sooner can expect that they receive the product before those who invested only now. What happened is that both the first UK and the first EU batch had a low yield. The problems were (hopefully) fixed but it will be months before the next batch will be ready. If the EU had invested sooner, these problems might have been already fixed by now. The UK risked more with earlier investment, so they should get some payout from the risk. From the moral side I think that it would be fair for the UK to send some vaccine supplies to the EU to show solidarity. Maybe they will do if we talk about this more dispassionately. On the other hand, legal threats are not going to work and may only spoil relationships.
      - thefounder 6y ago
        >> I would say it is fair. What has "fair" to do with an agreement/contract?
        NoPie 6y ago
        Exactly, it has nothing to do with the contract. If I make an agreement to delivery 100 million vaccine doses tomorrow and then fail to do it, so what? Concentrate on real issues, on what we can or cannot do, not on some lawyers' fantasies.
        CogitoCogito 6y ago
        Is AZ decreasing their delivery to the UK and Europe by the same percentage? edit: I find the downvotes without explanation a bit depressing. I'm replying to a post containing this: > Concentrate on real issues, on what we can or cannot do, not on some lawyers' fantasies. Decreasing UK and Euro deliveries equally is clearly something that we can do and not some legal fantasy.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
This is a completely reasonable question and the contract timing has nothing to do with it. European production of the AZ vaccine has fallen short, and the rest of their sourcing options fell through as well. Even if you accept that AZ has country based supply chains with different priorities, it still makes sense that the EU would want to know if the EU production is being shipped to other locations.

Bellamy 6y ago

I can't believe the stupidity of people believing these big pharma companies. "Yes, we can deliver." "No, we don't take any responsibility if something goes wrong." "Yes, the contract stays as a secret for public." "Yes, it's absolutely safe." "No, you can't sue us if something goes wrong." "Yes, the fastest vaccine approved before was four years" "No, no discount. We need to make profit."

im3w1l 6y ago
Discount? These jabs are extremely cheap compared to the costs of the shutdowns. Even at $1000 per patient it would be a no-brainer.
ricardo81 6y ago
I believe the AZ contract with the EU provides the vaccines "at cost".

Proven 6y ago

The EU is a joke. In all likelihood they can kiss AZ's ass. AZ committed to delivering 100 million doses to the UK and even though 100% of what's left may be due to the EU, that may amount to little. These are preemptive attacks to divert attention from the months of wasted time those fools spent processing paperwork and translating it into 30 languages, lol.

dependsontheq 6y ago

Remember that Astra Zeneca was supposed to manufacture for their contract before the EMA decision. Their first notice that they would only deliver a small part of the planned total was one week before the EMA decision. So I don't fault AstraZeneca if something went wrong at their plant, but imagine they would have told everybody in December that they have problems, there is no lack of production plants in the EU, alternatives might have been possible. This is no way to handle such a sensitive issue. Did the EU commission act brilliantly all the way... probably not, but it's not like AstraZeneca gave them a chance to act brilliant.