7 ms·

The UK invested in AZ 3 months earlier. Even if contracts are not very explicit about this, it appears that AZ really saw it as a separate supply chain from the

by NoPie 6y ago

The UK invested in AZ 3 months earlier. Even if contracts are not very explicit about this, it appears that AZ really saw it as a separate supply chain from the very beginning, at least for initial doses. Looking into contract is like trying to catch them at technicalities which is not done in good faith. Again, it is not contracts that can miraculously create more doses now. It was only because of investments done before. AZ is doing this for non-profit (a big mistake in my opinion), so what can you squeeze out of that? In fact, the EU should have invested even more, make them to build even larger facilities with more bioreactors that in case of low yield they would still have more doses. But it is all in hindsight, so not very useful to say it now. The UK is not privileged because their sites had the same issues with the first batches. The only difference is that they started 3 months earlier.

libertine 6y ago
>The UK invested in AZ 3 months earlier. Even if contracts are not very explicit about this, it appears that AZ really saw it as a separate supply chain from the very beginning, at least for initial doses. Looking into contract is like trying to catch them at technicalities which is not done in good faith. Why are you insisting on 12 weeks difference in a contract celebration when the issue at hands is AZ failing to fulfill their commitment - and it's not by a short amount, but by more than 50%+. If they "saw it as a separate supply chain" then they shouldn't have added to the contract that it wouldn't matter where the vaccines were produced, right? And saying that's a technicality when they are hiding behind the quote "best possible effort". They basically can claim they are doing their best effort while they have plenty of stock being made, and not shipping it. >Again, it is not contracts that can miraculously create more doses now. It was only because of investments done before. AZ is doing this for non-profit (a big mistake in my opinion), so what can you squeeze out of that? >In fact, the EU should have invested even more, make them to build even larger facilities with more bioreactors that in case of low yield they would still have more doses. But it is all in hindsight, so not very useful to say it now. Then maybe AZ should have made arrangements, or asked for help, if they saw they weren't going to be able to fulfill the orders - or maybe they were expecting to move orders from UK, yet they were blocked? Who knows, right? EU released the contract, they are not hiding. So if AZ is hiding something, they should come forward or face the consequences. >The UK is not privileged because their sites had the same issues with the first batches. The only difference is that they started 3 months earlier. Again I see no relevance in this, AZ signed a contract and committed to a deadline which they are failing by A LOT! I'm not saying UK is privileged or not, this is the contract between AZ and EU - now if UK is blocking AZ from exporting vaccines, let it be said out loud and let's all be transparent. If AZ is fulfilling UK contract and shitting on EU contract, then they are the ones privileging UK. EU is asking for transparency. One thing is AZ fulfilling all contracts by less than 50%. Other thing is some countries get 90% of fulfillment, and EU gets 30%.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  >EU is asking for transparency. One thing is AZ fulfilling all contracts by less than 50%. Other thing is some countries get 90% of fulfillment, and EU gets 30%. I think this has been established at this point. The question then become what the EU expected in the case of a domestic production shortfall and what they can do about it. I find it somewhat funny that haven’t bothered to demand doses manufactured in the USA. Perhaps they know better and don’t want to waste their time
  - libertine 6y ago
    Trump passed an executive order that guarantees US supply to be for USA first, and as far as I know, Biden didn't revoke that. Out of the many failures he has, one thing we knew: Trump was pretty transparent. Also delays for Pfizer were expected because they are expanding their facilities in Belgium, and still, Pfizer is delivering. AZ will deliver 30 million out of expected 100 million... it's not a little amount, and came out of nothing 2 months before delivery.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      I think we agree on the facts, with the addition that the UK has the same UK first policy, and appear to have the domestic manufacturing capacity to back it up. The EU is now coming late to a EU first supply policy, but still doesn't have the manufacturing capacity.
      - libertine 6y ago
        >The EU is now coming late to a EU first supply policy, but still doesn't have the manufacturing capacity. The EU is just naive with all the "let's do this together", e "lead by moral example", when in reality they should have placed precisely the first supply policy and everyone would be waiting for Pfizer vaccines until now. It's sad, but it's the world we live in.
        6y ago
ksec 6y ago
>AZ is doing this for non-profit (a big mistake in my opinion) Oh wow. I haven't been following closely. But Why? They should have made at least some profits. And use those for R&D. And if it was done for Non-Profits, why did it take the EU another 3 Months to put a stamp on it? And honestly it is very common to have Supply from different site for different region for all sort of reason. Transportation cost, safety, Time to Delivery etc. If everything you said were true ( and I dont have time to Fact Check everything ), then EU has only themselves to blame.
- NoPie 6y ago
  I am a pharmacist and I have followed this closely. AZ can make profits after July. They apparently did this for good PR. Unlike what people think vaccines usually do not bring much profits, so it was not a big sacrifice. The vaccine was designed by Oxford and it was intended to be the UK national pride and it seems they are succeeding. Maybe even too much because it is now making the EU jealous. The UK took other risks – even with the Pfizer vaccine they used all supplies to give as first doses to more people. That was a risk but they calculated that it is better to have more people with partial immunity than less people with stronger immunity. The EU mostly put aside the second dose to give strictly according to the schedule. Their regulators approved vaccines several weeks, even one month before the EU. Again they were criticized for this as being reckless. We cannot even say that their risk has paid off yet because they are in lockdown just like the EU. It is unfortunate that AZ cannot deliver enough vaccines now but many EU politicians and health regulators (France, Germany) have expressed doubts about AZ vaccine indication for elderly. So, maybe they are not that eager to receive all these supplies after all. Charitable explanation would be that they do this to calm people's anger about missed deliveries.

by NoPie 6y ago

libertine 6y ago

>The UK invested in AZ 3 months earlier. Even if contracts are not very explicit about this, it appears that AZ really saw it as a separate supply chain from the very beginning, at least for initial doses. Looking into contract is like trying to catch them at technicalities which is not done in good faith. Why are you insisting on 12 weeks difference in a contract celebration when the issue at hands is AZ failing to fulfill their commitment - and it's not by a short amount, but by more than 50%+. If they "saw it as a separate supply chain" then they shouldn't have added to the contract that it wouldn't matter where the vaccines were produced, right? And saying that's a technicality when they are hiding behind the quote "best possible effort". They basically can claim they are doing their best effort while they have plenty of stock being made, and not shipping it. >Again, it is not contracts that can miraculously create more doses now. It was only because of investments done before. AZ is doing this for non-profit (a big mistake in my opinion), so what can you squeeze out of that? >In fact, the EU should have invested even more, make them to build even larger facilities with more bioreactors that in case of low yield they would still have more doses. But it is all in hindsight, so not very useful to say it now. Then maybe AZ should have made arrangements, or asked for help, if they saw they weren't going to be able to fulfill the orders - or maybe they were expecting to move orders from UK, yet they were blocked? Who knows, right? EU released the contract, they are not hiding. So if AZ is hiding something, they should come forward or face the consequences. >The UK is not privileged because their sites had the same issues with the first batches. The only difference is that they started 3 months earlier. Again I see no relevance in this, AZ signed a contract and committed to a deadline which they are failing by A LOT! I'm not saying UK is privileged or not, this is the contract between AZ and EU - now if UK is blocking AZ from exporting vaccines, let it be said out loud and let's all be transparent. If AZ is fulfilling UK contract and shitting on EU contract, then they are the ones privileging UK. EU is asking for transparency. One thing is AZ fulfilling all contracts by less than 50%. Other thing is some countries get 90% of fulfillment, and EU gets 30%.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
>EU is asking for transparency. One thing is AZ fulfilling all contracts by less than 50%. Other thing is some countries get 90% of fulfillment, and EU gets 30%. I think this has been established at this point. The question then become what the EU expected in the case of a domestic production shortfall and what they can do about it. I find it somewhat funny that haven’t bothered to demand doses manufactured in the USA. Perhaps they know better and don’t want to waste their time
- libertine 6y ago
  Trump passed an executive order that guarantees US supply to be for USA first, and as far as I know, Biden didn't revoke that. Out of the many failures he has, one thing we knew: Trump was pretty transparent. Also delays for Pfizer were expected because they are expanding their facilities in Belgium, and still, Pfizer is delivering. AZ will deliver 30 million out of expected 100 million... it's not a little amount, and came out of nothing 2 months before delivery.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I think we agree on the facts, with the addition that the UK has the same UK first policy, and appear to have the domestic manufacturing capacity to back it up. The EU is now coming late to a EU first supply policy, but still doesn't have the manufacturing capacity.
    - libertine 6y ago
      >The EU is now coming late to a EU first supply policy, but still doesn't have the manufacturing capacity. The EU is just naive with all the "let's do this together", e "lead by moral example", when in reality they should have placed precisely the first supply policy and everyone would be waiting for Pfizer vaccines until now. It's sad, but it's the world we live in.
      - 6y ago

ksec 6y ago

>AZ is doing this for non-profit (a big mistake in my opinion) Oh wow. I haven't been following closely. But Why? They should have made at least some profits. And use those for R&D. And if it was done for Non-Profits, why did it take the EU another 3 Months to put a stamp on it? And honestly it is very common to have Supply from different site for different region for all sort of reason. Transportation cost, safety, Time to Delivery etc. If everything you said were true ( and I dont have time to Fact Check everything ), then EU has only themselves to blame.

NoPie 6y ago
I am a pharmacist and I have followed this closely. AZ can make profits after July. They apparently did this for good PR. Unlike what people think vaccines usually do not bring much profits, so it was not a big sacrifice. The vaccine was designed by Oxford and it was intended to be the UK national pride and it seems they are succeeding. Maybe even too much because it is now making the EU jealous. The UK took other risks – even with the Pfizer vaccine they used all supplies to give as first doses to more people. That was a risk but they calculated that it is better to have more people with partial immunity than less people with stronger immunity. The EU mostly put aside the second dose to give strictly according to the schedule. Their regulators approved vaccines several weeks, even one month before the EU. Again they were criticized for this as being reckless. We cannot even say that their risk has paid off yet because they are in lockdown just like the EU. It is unfortunate that AZ cannot deliver enough vaccines now but many EU politicians and health regulators (France, Germany) have expressed doubts about AZ vaccine indication for elderly. So, maybe they are not that eager to receive all these supplies after all. Charitable explanation would be that they do this to calm people's anger about missed deliveries.