4 ms·

Isn't this because the EU let the US/UK take priority of production? I was under the impression AZ was filling their fulfillments to US/UK just fine. This seems

Isn't this because the EU let the US/UK take priority of production? I was under the impression AZ was filling their fulfillments to US/UK just fine. This seems like EU just couldn't keep up in the horse race negotiating.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
This is still the subject of debate, and, at some point, possibly a matter for the courts. What has emerged more recently is that the UK contract was, in contradiction of earlier statements, signed a day after the EU contract. The UK contract's text was also leaked somewhat accidentally, and it is almost identical to the previously-released EU contract. I've looked at them side-by-side and I'm just not enough of an armchair lawyer to make too much sense of 60-page contracts, but I couldn't quite see how the existing differences would constitute any clear priority for the UK.
- tester89 6y ago
  Citations! I need to see this.
- decodebytes 6y ago
  > signed a day after the EU contract. I have been following this quite closely, and this is complete new to me. I would really like to see a source on this, otherwise it should be considered false information.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    “Assume good faith” is among the site rules here, so if you have doubts you’re free to do a quick Google search and come back with proof of any lies ou may suspect,or to shut up. As someone else posted: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
    - decodebytes 6y ago
      Context is important, as outlined from the article: > However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said. One official close to the U.K. contract said the agreement began as an email in April from the U.K. government saying it would provide £65 million to help the University of Oxford execute its production plan. It later evolved into a fully-fledged contract between the government and the British-Swedish company, which also might explain why it took until August for the contract to be signed. Most important, however, is that it meant that the British government was “effectively a major shareholder” in the jab’s development as early as April. After Oxford and AstraZeneca agreed to team up at the end of April, for example, the British government filled seats on Oxford-AstraZeneca joint liaison committees. “Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.” This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines. The countries’ deal at the time was a fairly bare-bones agreement, and it’s unclear whether it established a European supply chain, but over the summer it was transferred into the formal purchasing agreement managed by the Commission.
- kcartlidge 6y ago
  The UK signed a day later than the EU (August 28th vs 27th), but that was the 2nd agreement. They already had one in May last year that legally committed AZ to "a dedicated supply chain for the UK". The UK contract says the supply chain "will be appropriate and sufficient", and the EU one talks about "best reasonable efforts". The UK contract gives the power to penalise for non-delivery, whereas the EU one waives all rights to sue other than for bad production practices or wilful misconduct - and even then all it can do is withhold money. The EU also agreed in regard to other contracts (eg the UK one) that when being "impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach". Given that (plus the AZ vaccine belongs to a UK university and the UK government has been on the decision board for the project since April 2020) it was inevitable which 'side' would go short if production slowed. (I'm British, but hopefully not too biased) PS. IANAL, most of the above came from https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-... though I've also seen similar analysis elsewhere.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    Thanks! Your post is definitely not too biased, and I am far from having confidence in any particular opinion regarding this affair. The two separate agreements, for example, weren’t mentioned before it became convenient to do so after the date of the supposedly second agreement was leaked against their wishes. From the EU’s point of view, one might wonder if any prior agreement with a potential to interrupt supplies should have then been disclosed during negotiations. Maybe there was no legal requirement to do so, but I wonder how good a strategy that is in a long-term game against a party that literally makes the law. The EU can be legally inept, as we’ve learnt, in everything that isn’t Brexit. AZ might allow us to learn how good they are at what’s, conversely, been the Brexiteers’ domain so far, carrying grudges.
  - kcartlidge 6y ago
    I should withdraw my point about competing agreements (I cannot edit it now). As has been pointed in another comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26350113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26350113 - there is a better reading which changes the context of the 'breach' being discussed.
Stannary 6y ago
EU made a deal with AZ back in August when AZ still didn't have a ready vaccine. That is why EU pays vaccine at $2.15. Later, UK and US agreed to buy AZ vaccine and are paying 3$ and 4$. https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n281 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n281 Now all of the sudden agreements with UK and US are fulfilled and with EU are not. Countries are currently outbidding each other and stealing the supplies. It was naive of EU bureaucracy to think that the cheapest price is the priority.
- strictnein 6y ago
  I keep seeing it mentioned that the US agreement is being fulfilled. I've seen nothing about AZ being delivered to the US, and it isn't even approved yet. Also, the US signed a deal with AZ in May of 2020, which would seem to put them ahead of the UK and EU? https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-scores-1b-from-u-s-signs-up-to-deliver-hundreds-millions-covid-19-vaccines https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-scores-1b-fr...
  - pgeorgi 6y ago
    I think the main point of that particular argument is that folks in the UK claimed that "they came first" while EU reps said "doesn't matter who came first, what matters is what the contracts say". (I tend to agree with the latter) There's some minor amount of irony if the UK contract really was a day later than the EU's (in a 3 year old screaming "gotcha" kind of way), but it still shouldn't change a thing about who gets how many vaccines at which point in time. In the end it seems to boil down to AZ not meeting the numbers they promised and having to cut corners _somewhere_, and the EU doesn't want to be the one bearing the load - at least not alone: other vaccine suppliers cut down deliveries due to production issues as well (e.g. biontech/pfizer, also due to retooling a Belgian factory), but they split it across the board and apparently handled that transparently with all customers. What goes around comes around, and so that was a pretty painless experience for all involved. With AZ there was the additional complication that the company is part British (and it's generally presented as a British company only) and those contractual disagreements happened in parallel to those other contractual disagreements between the EU and Brits about shipping goods, so there was already a higher base temperature in the public discussion of the AZ delivery schedule.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

This is still the subject of debate, and, at some point, possibly a matter for the courts. What has emerged more recently is that the UK contract was, in contradiction of earlier statements, signed a day after the EU contract. The UK contract's text was also leaked somewhat accidentally, and it is almost identical to the previously-released EU contract. I've looked at them side-by-side and I'm just not enough of an armchair lawyer to make too much sense of 60-page contracts, but I couldn't quite see how the existing differences would constitute any clear priority for the UK.

tester89 6y ago
Citations! I need to see this.
decodebytes 6y ago
> signed a day after the EU contract. I have been following this quite closely, and this is complete new to me. I would really like to see a source on this, otherwise it should be considered false information.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  “Assume good faith” is among the site rules here, so if you have doubts you’re free to do a quick Google search and come back with proof of any lies ou may suspect,or to shut up. As someone else posted: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
  - decodebytes 6y ago
    Context is important, as outlined from the article: > However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said. One official close to the U.K. contract said the agreement began as an email in April from the U.K. government saying it would provide £65 million to help the University of Oxford execute its production plan. It later evolved into a fully-fledged contract between the government and the British-Swedish company, which also might explain why it took until August for the contract to be signed. Most important, however, is that it meant that the British government was “effectively a major shareholder” in the jab’s development as early as April. After Oxford and AstraZeneca agreed to team up at the end of April, for example, the British government filled seats on Oxford-AstraZeneca joint liaison committees. “Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.” This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines. The countries’ deal at the time was a fairly bare-bones agreement, and it’s unclear whether it established a European supply chain, but over the summer it was transferred into the formal purchasing agreement managed by the Commission.
kcartlidge 6y ago
The UK signed a day later than the EU (August 28th vs 27th), but that was the 2nd agreement. They already had one in May last year that legally committed AZ to "a dedicated supply chain for the UK". The UK contract says the supply chain "will be appropriate and sufficient", and the EU one talks about "best reasonable efforts". The UK contract gives the power to penalise for non-delivery, whereas the EU one waives all rights to sue other than for bad production practices or wilful misconduct - and even then all it can do is withhold money. The EU also agreed in regard to other contracts (eg the UK one) that when being "impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach". Given that (plus the AZ vaccine belongs to a UK university and the UK government has been on the decision board for the project since April 2020) it was inevitable which 'side' would go short if production slowed. (I'm British, but hopefully not too biased) PS. IANAL, most of the above came from https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-... though I've also seen similar analysis elsewhere.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  Thanks! Your post is definitely not too biased, and I am far from having confidence in any particular opinion regarding this affair. The two separate agreements, for example, weren’t mentioned before it became convenient to do so after the date of the supposedly second agreement was leaked against their wishes. From the EU’s point of view, one might wonder if any prior agreement with a potential to interrupt supplies should have then been disclosed during negotiations. Maybe there was no legal requirement to do so, but I wonder how good a strategy that is in a long-term game against a party that literally makes the law. The EU can be legally inept, as we’ve learnt, in everything that isn’t Brexit. AZ might allow us to learn how good they are at what’s, conversely, been the Brexiteers’ domain so far, carrying grudges.
- kcartlidge 6y ago
  I should withdraw my point about competing agreements (I cannot edit it now). As has been pointed in another comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26350113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26350113 - there is a better reading which changes the context of the 'breach' being discussed.

Stannary 6y ago

EU made a deal with AZ back in August when AZ still didn't have a ready vaccine. That is why EU pays vaccine at $2.15. Later, UK and US agreed to buy AZ vaccine and are paying 3$ and 4$. https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n281 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n281 Now all of the sudden agreements with UK and US are fulfilled and with EU are not. Countries are currently outbidding each other and stealing the supplies. It was naive of EU bureaucracy to think that the cheapest price is the priority.

strictnein 6y ago
I keep seeing it mentioned that the US agreement is being fulfilled. I've seen nothing about AZ being delivered to the US, and it isn't even approved yet. Also, the US signed a deal with AZ in May of 2020, which would seem to put them ahead of the UK and EU? https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-scores-1b-from-u-s-signs-up-to-deliver-hundreds-millions-covid-19-vaccines https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-scores-1b-fr...
- pgeorgi 6y ago
  I think the main point of that particular argument is that folks in the UK claimed that "they came first" while EU reps said "doesn't matter who came first, what matters is what the contracts say". (I tend to agree with the latter) There's some minor amount of irony if the UK contract really was a day later than the EU's (in a 3 year old screaming "gotcha" kind of way), but it still shouldn't change a thing about who gets how many vaccines at which point in time. In the end it seems to boil down to AZ not meeting the numbers they promised and having to cut corners _somewhere_, and the EU doesn't want to be the one bearing the load - at least not alone: other vaccine suppliers cut down deliveries due to production issues as well (e.g. biontech/pfizer, also due to retooling a Belgian factory), but they split it across the board and apparently handled that transparently with all customers. What goes around comes around, and so that was a pretty painless experience for all involved. With AZ there was the additional complication that the company is part British (and it's generally presented as a British company only) and those contractual disagreements happened in parallel to those other contractual disagreements between the EU and Brits about shipping goods, so there was already a higher base temperature in the public discussion of the AZ delivery schedule.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]