4 ms·

Not agreeing/disagreeing on the misinformation, but regarding the failure: The EU negotiated badly, and AZ used that to fool them. I think AZ deserves some mor

Not agreeing/disagreeing on the misinformation, but regarding the failure: The EU negotiated badly, and AZ used that to fool them. I think AZ deserves some moral blame here as well.

billyruffian 6y ago
The Belgian investigation into the production facility with the manufacturing problem: what did it evidence? I'm curious because I've not come across what the result was or if there was any evidence of dissembling from AZ.
- martinald 6y ago
  They also checked the customs forms, but we didn't hear anything (to my knowledge after). The head of the UKs vaccine taskforce also said she thought it was very unlikely that AZ vaccines were shipped from the EU to the UK (this makes sense, how would you ship them if those factories are not up to speed yet?).
goto11 6y ago
As I understand the conflict: EU negotiated a lower price than UK, but both parties got contracts guaranteeing a certain number of doses. When AstraZeneca got production problems which meant they couldn't fulfill all the promised deliveries, they decided to fully honor the UK contract and cut delivery to EU severely. This infuriated the EU, and they threatened blocking export of the vaccines produced in the EU. More fun if it turns out the AstraZeneca vaccine is useless.
- martinald 6y ago
  Where do you get this idea that contracts guaranteed a certain number of deliveries? The contract the EU signed said best effort everywhere. Why would AZ agree to a contract to guarantee certain deliveries on a brand new vaccine with unproven manufacturing, on a non-profit basis? It doesn't make any sense. The other thing which isn't mentioned is the UK's deliveries were also cut, probably even more severely than the EU ones. The UK was originally meant to get many tens of millions of doses by the end of 2020, in reality it was far far less.
  - goto11 6y ago
    At least this is how it is reported in the media like here: https://theconversation.com/astrazeneca-dispute-comes-at-a-difficult-moment-for-the-european-union-154100 https://theconversation.com/astrazeneca-dispute-comes-at-a-d... > AstraZeneca has reduced its projected vaccine rollout to the EU, despite signing a contract to supply millions of doses, citing an issue with a plant in Belgium. It did not, however, cut its supplies to the UK.
    - dagw 6y ago
      My understanding is that while the EU contract said something like "best effort" the UK negotiated stricter language for their contract, which meant that when AZ lawyers interpreted both contracts together they concluded that they had to priorities the UK.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - easytiger 6y ago
        > which meant that when AZ lawyers interpreted both contracts together they concluded that they had to priorities the UK. The UK negotiated completely independent supply chain that they paid for up front. It isn't comparable.
  - tremon 6y ago
    > The contract the EU signed said best effort everywhere. If the contract really said best effort everywhere, they may have a leg to stand on, since that seems to preclude using different delivery guarantees in other contracts.
    - martinald 6y ago
      It specifically did not say that. I meant that it was used a lot in that specific contract.
easytiger 6y ago
> The EU negotiated badly, and AZ used that to fool them. I think AZ deserves some moral blame here as well. Completely unacceptable and unsupportable suggestion. The EU had absolute clarity on the differing supply chains for differing contracts with AZ. No amount of contract negotiation increase culture yields in vaccine production lines.

Not agreeing/disagreeing on the misinformation, but regarding the failure: The EU negotiated badly, and AZ used that to fool them. I think AZ deserves some moral blame here as well.

billyruffian 6y ago

The Belgian investigation into the production facility with the manufacturing problem: what did it evidence? I'm curious because I've not come across what the result was or if there was any evidence of dissembling from AZ.

martinald 6y ago
They also checked the customs forms, but we didn't hear anything (to my knowledge after). The head of the UKs vaccine taskforce also said she thought it was very unlikely that AZ vaccines were shipped from the EU to the UK (this makes sense, how would you ship them if those factories are not up to speed yet?).

goto11 6y ago

As I understand the conflict: EU negotiated a lower price than UK, but both parties got contracts guaranteeing a certain number of doses. When AstraZeneca got production problems which meant they couldn't fulfill all the promised deliveries, they decided to fully honor the UK contract and cut delivery to EU severely. This infuriated the EU, and they threatened blocking export of the vaccines produced in the EU. More fun if it turns out the AstraZeneca vaccine is useless.

martinald 6y ago
Where do you get this idea that contracts guaranteed a certain number of deliveries? The contract the EU signed said best effort everywhere. Why would AZ agree to a contract to guarantee certain deliveries on a brand new vaccine with unproven manufacturing, on a non-profit basis? It doesn't make any sense. The other thing which isn't mentioned is the UK's deliveries were also cut, probably even more severely than the EU ones. The UK was originally meant to get many tens of millions of doses by the end of 2020, in reality it was far far less.
- goto11 6y ago
  At least this is how it is reported in the media like here: https://theconversation.com/astrazeneca-dispute-comes-at-a-difficult-moment-for-the-european-union-154100 https://theconversation.com/astrazeneca-dispute-comes-at-a-d... > AstraZeneca has reduced its projected vaccine rollout to the EU, despite signing a contract to supply millions of doses, citing an issue with a plant in Belgium. It did not, however, cut its supplies to the UK.
  - dagw 6y ago
    My understanding is that while the EU contract said something like "best effort" the UK negotiated stricter language for their contract, which meant that when AZ lawyers interpreted both contracts together they concluded that they had to priorities the UK.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - easytiger 6y ago
      > which meant that when AZ lawyers interpreted both contracts together they concluded that they had to priorities the UK. The UK negotiated completely independent supply chain that they paid for up front. It isn't comparable.
- tremon 6y ago
  > The contract the EU signed said best effort everywhere. If the contract really said best effort everywhere, they may have a leg to stand on, since that seems to preclude using different delivery guarantees in other contracts.
  - martinald 6y ago
    It specifically did not say that. I meant that it was used a lot in that specific contract.

easytiger 6y ago

> The EU negotiated badly, and AZ used that to fool them. I think AZ deserves some moral blame here as well. Completely unacceptable and unsupportable suggestion. The EU had absolute clarity on the differing supply chains for differing contracts with AZ. No amount of contract negotiation increase culture yields in vaccine production lines.