6 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 th

>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.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        I think you are giving the EU more credit than they deserve. As far as I know, They don't have control over the Pfizer supply chain, and this vaccine starts manufacturing in the US before going to the EU. Because they don't have end-to-end manufacturing in EU, they have to cooperate.
        libertine 6y ago
        More credit to have funded literally 2 of the main vaccines development? Both BioNTech and Astrazaneca received European funding, besides the orders. Yet some countries are accelerating these vaccines, while EU is slowing down? Something isn't adding up, that's all.
NoPie 6y ago
I agree that AstraZeneca should have been communicating better. It is not the first time they have caused public outrage due to communication issues. On the other hand, this is pandemic and they are trying their best with the vaccine. Is it really the time to criticize them for minor faults? They really believed that they will be able to manufacture all the doses in time. They had a bad luck. But again a year ago most didn't even believe that such vaccine is possible, so they deserve credit for their efforts. Their vaccine appears effective – most importantly the vaccine completely eliminated hospitalizations and deaths. The value of their product is very high and they are not even making profit from it. >> 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? I don't think there is any conspiracy. From AstraZeneca's point they want to produce as much vaccine and as fast as possible and to give it to all countries. Taking manufactured vaccines from one country and giving them to another doesn't magically increase the amount of available vaccines, so the value of that is low so they are not going to do it unless really necessary. Maybe the argument is that the UK has already vaccinated their risk groups and their urgency is lower, so they could give more vaccine now to the EU. This is the argument from the WHO as well. I even partially agree to this, although I am a little bit suspicious about the WHO as they haven't been very efficient during this pandemic. But at least it makes sense unlike all these talks about sanctity of (unclearly written) contracts.
- libertine 6y ago
  Well if missing an order by 70 million doses with a 2 months notice is a minor fault, what would be a major fault? Again, one thing is missing by less then half, other thing is more then half while fulfilling almost fully orders for other countries. So, clearly some contracts have more value then others, or there are blocks in place. Trump was pretty explicit and transparent about it: issued an executive order mandating all USA orders to have priority for USA. This is something tangible that can be worked with. What about UK? Why don't they come forward and say they also have a block for vaccine exports? Or it's only the EU that's "hostile" for doing it now? >I don't think there is any conspiracy. This isn't a conspiracy at all. It's binary: AZ can't, or won't, move stock from UK.

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.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      I think you are giving the EU more credit than they deserve. As far as I know, They don't have control over the Pfizer supply chain, and this vaccine starts manufacturing in the US before going to the EU. Because they don't have end-to-end manufacturing in EU, they have to cooperate.
      - libertine 6y ago
        More credit to have funded literally 2 of the main vaccines development? Both BioNTech and Astrazaneca received European funding, besides the orders. Yet some countries are accelerating these vaccines, while EU is slowing down? Something isn't adding up, that's all.

NoPie 6y ago

I agree that AstraZeneca should have been communicating better. It is not the first time they have caused public outrage due to communication issues. On the other hand, this is pandemic and they are trying their best with the vaccine. Is it really the time to criticize them for minor faults? They really believed that they will be able to manufacture all the doses in time. They had a bad luck. But again a year ago most didn't even believe that such vaccine is possible, so they deserve credit for their efforts. Their vaccine appears effective – most importantly the vaccine completely eliminated hospitalizations and deaths. The value of their product is very high and they are not even making profit from it. >> 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? I don't think there is any conspiracy. From AstraZeneca's point they want to produce as much vaccine and as fast as possible and to give it to all countries. Taking manufactured vaccines from one country and giving them to another doesn't magically increase the amount of available vaccines, so the value of that is low so they are not going to do it unless really necessary. Maybe the argument is that the UK has already vaccinated their risk groups and their urgency is lower, so they could give more vaccine now to the EU. This is the argument from the WHO as well. I even partially agree to this, although I am a little bit suspicious about the WHO as they haven't been very efficient during this pandemic. But at least it makes sense unlike all these talks about sanctity of (unclearly written) contracts.

libertine 6y ago
Well if missing an order by 70 million doses with a 2 months notice is a minor fault, what would be a major fault? Again, one thing is missing by less then half, other thing is more then half while fulfilling almost fully orders for other countries. So, clearly some contracts have more value then others, or there are blocks in place. Trump was pretty explicit and transparent about it: issued an executive order mandating all USA orders to have priority for USA. This is something tangible that can be worked with. What about UK? Why don't they come forward and say they also have a block for vaccine exports? Or it's only the EU that's "hostile" for doing it now? >I don't think there is any conspiracy. This isn't a conspiracy at all. It's binary: AZ can't, or won't, move stock from UK.