7 ms·

AstraZeneca boss is in the “hot seat” over vaccine delays, France says

24 points by reddotX 6y ago

easytiger 6y ago
I mean, they don't have a leg to stand on, France that is. The UK supply chain started yield infrastructure build out in q1 2020 as paid for exclusively by the UK at the behest of the Jenner institute. French politics is transference and blame to deflect blame from the leadership. Currently they promised 10m by end of march in total vaccinated. But in seeing that wouldn't be possible they jumped at the chance to stop issuing it so they can lean on that excuse
- blfr 6y ago
  From what I understand, the EU has done poorly in the both in the negotiations and actually provisioning vaccines and it's not strictly an issue with leadership in any particular country. Beyond delegating their responsibility of course.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    To be fair, the EU ordered around four doses per resident (incl. minors) already in January. With deliveries through, if I remember well, June to July to vaccinate everyone. And the EU explicitly called out the distribution and vaccination efforts in the member states to be the biggest challenge. And due to the nature of the EU, these were the sole responsibility of the member states. The EU did screw up in terms of communication and coordination. The former let to public and media pressure to order more, which negatively impacted short term availability, and the latter let to delays of the vaccination campaigns. The only way the EU could have improved that, so, would have been to serve as a clearing house coordinating exact delivery dates for members based on actual vaccination plans. without those plans, there is nothing the EU could have done. And at least Germany, the biggest member state, doesn't have a true plan. As shown when our government implemented a vaccination summit in Feb of 2021.
  - JPLeRouzic 6y ago
    > and it's not strictly an issue with leadership in any particular country. The title says "France says" and it reports about a comment from France’s Industry Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher. The original article seems to be this one: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/8h30-fauvelle-dely/vaccin-astrazeneca-contrats-avec-l-union-europeenne-campagne-de-vaccination-le-8h30franceinfo-d-agnes-pannier-runacher_4316399.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https:/...
breakfastduck 6y ago
A bit fucking rich from France. This is the classic EU attitude of absolute overwhelming entitlement. They will never EVER admit that they fucked up.
- sbuk 6y ago
  They will never accept any culpability. I have elderly family living in France and they have said that medical professionals they have interacted with are livid with how their Govenment and the EU have handled this. The blame lies squarely at the EU's feet.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    I agree, unfortunately France are likely to hold the line rather than seriously criticize the EU publicly.
- rvieira 6y ago
  This is not "whataboutism", it's simply prompted by your "classic EU attitude: Was there a single resignation or admission of guilt from the UK goverment for one of worst responses to COVID19?
  - nvoid 6y ago
    You can't really just precede a whataboutism with 'This is not "whataboutism"'. I agree Bojo's response has been shambolic but we are talking about the EU here.
  - sbuk 6y ago
    Nearly all of the response to the pandemic from the Johnson Govenment has been shambolic, except for the vaccine roll-out, which is the NHS at it's best.
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      Very important to note that - the vaccine rollout has been handled by the NHS mainly and NOT the govt directly. One of the few things that has been handled properly.
gushie 6y ago
One minute they're suspending use of AstraZeneca, the next they're complaining they aren't getting enough deliveries of the vaccine they don't want to use.
IMTDb 6y ago
The EU was super happy on the negociations on the vaccine prices with AstraZeneca. They claimed that the grouped buy was a major reason why they were able to get such a cheap price (Around $2.15 / dose). The US and UK pays around $3 to $4 / dose. To compare, South Africa seems to be paying $5.25 to AstraZeneca. Pfizer vaccine costs $14.70/dose and Moderna $18. You can see why the EU is so dependent on AstraZeneca. It's all about injecting the cheapest vaccine as fast as possible. Basically, the EU got a super heavy discount on the vaccine price. This also mean that they are last on the line for deliveries. In times of hardship, any sensible business will satisfy clients who pay a significant premium for their product before delivering the noisy client that negociates super harshly and can't stop complaining about your product. Ursula von der Leyen needs to look herself in the mirror for the supposed "vaccine delivery issues". She willingly looked for the cheapest provider. When you imperatively need a product to be delivered and to work, you pay a premium for it, you don't look to reduce your costs as much as possible.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Isn't AZ forced into a non-profit scheme by the IP agreement with the University of Oxford?
  - aneutron 6y ago
    I would love to hear more about this ? Any source on it ?
    - pityJuke 6y ago
      https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-23-oxford-university-breakthrough-global-covid-19-vaccine https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-23-oxford-university-break... (it is towards the end)
      - hef19898 6y ago
        Thanks for being faster!
  - 6y ago
a_humean 6y ago
I bet Astrazeneca/Oxford is regretting offering to produce at cost due to the level of grief and politicking coming from EU capitals and the EU commission.
- fenk85 6y ago
  They didnt show any regret when taking hundreds of millions and making promises that they seem to knew they could not keep.
- supergirl 6y ago
  it just means they don't make a profit, officially, right? but they get paid to cover everything: workforce, R&D, opening extra plants, bonuses for executives, etc. I'm sure it's practically no different. just accounting magic. just the fact that they get paid to ramp up production is enough win. they'll leverage this to make profit later.
  - a_humean 6y ago
    I just mean that if you name is going to get dragged through the mud you can forgive the feeling that maybe they should a profit out of it. All of their competitors are recording record profits from vaccine sales. Their only silver lining is they have sold a $250 million USD stake in Moderna for $1 billion this month.
twice_benny 6y ago
EU bureaucrats in disbelief that words on paper mean little in exigent times. This is one of the big problems with the EU when it comes to geopolitical issues and security. Way too dependent on diplomacy and then always get surprised when other entities simply break the rules. I guess maybe the lack of foresight is because they are used to lording it over the EU member states (with a couple of exceptions) and then expect non-EU states to be equally complacent. Instead of wasting time negotiating on price, they should have built manufacturing capacity within EU borders.
- hef19898 6y ago
  The EU followed a multi source strategy, the additional production capacity was only needed when the EU was kind of forced to order more. Even if that wasn't really needed, because more =|= faster, and faster was the real issue. The initial EU plan was to order more than needed, and share these doses with poorer countries outside the EU. Solid plan, badly communicated with badly negotiated contracts and a total lack of coordination and planning on behalf of the member states. As a result, we got the mess we have now.
- fvdessen 6y ago
  The EU has paid AstraZeneca to build manufacturing capacity within EU borders, but a big part of that capacity is used to supply the UK. AstraZeneca has also quite smartly been extremely slow to file the necessary paperwork to make those plants EU compliant so that even with export controls, the capacity of those plants cannot be used by Europe. Edit: The comment originally claimed that EU made vaccines were exported to the USA, this is actually not the case
  - ericmay 6y ago
    Why is that? And why doesn’t the E.U. send police or military to stop shipments from leaving the E.U. if they are in violation of contractual obligations or law? But also, as E.U. member states are suspending the AstraZeneca vaccine why is it even a problem that the shipments are leaving the E.U.? I find the response and handling of the entire situation by the E.U. to be a bit perplexing.
cwhiz 6y ago
This is straight out of those GI Joe voiceover videos. Give us the vaccine! We’re suspending use of the vaccine! https://youtu.be/DXFdPTaCtkc https://youtu.be/DXFdPTaCtkc
TechBro8615 6y ago
I was told Brexit would crash the British economy. And yet now it's the EU begging the UK for a vaccine, the rate of GBP/USD is nearly at a 5 year high, and the UK has made serious progress vaccinating its population. Maybe the leavers were onto something?
- a_humean 6y ago
  Except goods exports are down 40%, large chunks of finance and services are being moved to Amsterdam and other EU capitals, and Northern Ireland is having trouble stocking its supermarket shelves while unionist paramilitary groups are renouncing the Good Friday Agreement. The developing story is that Brexit is a slow moving disaster for trade, services, and the stability in Northern Ireland. All of this was predicted.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Except goods exports are down 40% You're thinking of a few weeks in January. By February cross-border traffic was nearly back to normal (about 90% of similar traffic a year earlier but that's with lockdown, which surely reduces trade). large chunks of finance and services are being moved to Amsterdam No, only trading of EU shares which isn't a big market for London to begin with. London has a huge finance ecosystem with many components that have nothing to do with the EU at all. Northern Ireland is having trouble stocking its supermarket shelves That cuts both ways. There have also been problems with supermarket shelves in Europe: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1395267/EU-news-supermarkets-shortages-Belgium-Brexit-UK-EU-trade-deal-latest-vn https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1395267/EU-news-supe... These problems are being resolved over time. One issue is that the EU has pulled out all the stops to make exports from the UK as painful as possible via various forms of malicious rule-enforcement. The UK has not retaliated in kind and in fact is waiving the rules for a while to let EU exporters learn the ropes. Examples of "malicious rule enforcement" are goods being rejected at the border due to a spelling error in the Latin name of a fish, sandwiches being confiscated from truck drivers, etc. The EU is essentially a protectionist bloc and has got very good at erecting trade barriers through complex certification and tax rules. There are no technical reasons for most of these new requirements. UK standards and enforcement have not changed from before. However EU has no interest in recognising the reality on the ground, they are interested in finding ways to incentivise membership and empower the Commission. We now see what other all other non-European countries have to pointlessly suffer through when trying to trade with the UK previously - not pleasant. One thing to bear in mind is that whilst the EU is increasing friction with UK/EU trade, it is now possible to reduce friction with other parts of the world. Already there has been a mini trade deal with the USA such that, for example, 25% tariffs on Scottish whisky are being dropped. So trade gets harder with Europe but is getting easier with other parts of the world. As for peace in Northern Ireland, it wasn't the UK that just weeks ago tried to impose a hard border there, was it? So much for the EU being dedicated to peace in NI. They give fine words but it lasted less than a month before they violated all those agreements and had to be forced to back down by a massive rebellion.
thu2111 6y ago
So the proximate issue appears to be lack of government approval for a new factory in the Netherlands. The contract issue has been done to death: the contracts the EU signed talk about best efforts. They don't actually seem to contain any penalties for "late" delivery. AZ must surely see the EU as a colossal pain in the rear by now. If EU want to be treated as higher priority they're doing it all wrong because repeatedly abusing and pissing off the people who can make your vaccine is not a smart move. So far we have seen: • EU leaders haggled for months over cost and didn't sign early contracts, despite AZ producing it not-for-profit. • EU publicly claimed AZ were in violation of contract. AZ denied it. Then the Commission released the contract redacted, but they redacted it incorrectly which let people see the EU was lying and AZ was telling the truth. • EU regulators reached same decision as UK regulators but much slower. At one point when asked why they still hadn't approved it, their answer was something like "AZ didn't contact us yet". Apparently proactively reaching out was not imaginable. • Multiple EU leaders then claimed the vaccine didn't work, which turned out to be another lie. • Then they briefly attempted to violate the supposedly sacrosanct and inviolable Northern Ireland protocol to stop AZ vaccine being exported from the EU (which didn't have any) to the UK (which had lots). Beyond making no sense at all this also showed the EU had been lying again for years during the Brexit negotiations, as they repeatedly claimed to be totally committed to NI peace process and would never accept anything that could lead to a border. All tossed out the window just weeks after the UK/EU transition period ended. • EU repeatedly claimed to hate vaccine nationalism and find it totally unacceptable. Then they blocked export of AZ vaccine meant for Australia from Italy. Then they lied again and claimed the UK had blocked exports of vaccine materials to the EU, which had never happened. • Now they started claiming the vaccine is dangerous, although according to AZ this is once again not supported by the data (similar to the claim it doesn't work). [1] • And today they are again claiming AZ is not honouring the contracts, despite having totally failed to produce evidence this is true or even, as far as I know, start a court case related to this supposed violation. By now the EU/AZ/UK relationship is a disaster zone. EU leaderships just continually obfuscate and make outright false statements about the vaccine and the people who make it. They're lucky AZ is still willing to work with them at all. [1] https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/update-on-the-safety-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca.html https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021...
supergirl 6y ago
suddenly HN is keen on defending big pharma. if this happened in the US I can't even imagine the outcry. also, it seems this thread is overrun by brexiteers looking for a win. the EU signed a contract in good faith but AZ decided it's a big boy and will not honor it, based on some contract technicalities. risky bet. US from the start blocked vaccine exports, putting "americans first". EU mistakenly allowed exports but because of AZ we can't have nice things happening. so now their exports are blocked and other countries will suffer: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccines-export-idUKKBN2AW1EK https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-eu-vac....
- ericmay 6y ago
  > US from the start blocked vaccine exports Not sure how I feel about this. I can't help but think: "can't help others if you don't put your oxygen mask on first". It's also hard to see how Americans in particular (and fairly enough any country) wouldn't go absolutely bananas if the government made this huge deal out of COVID-19 and then turn around and exported vaccines to other countries while half a million people were dead. Certainly at least some of this discussion would depend on where you start from (i.e. maybe you're against the idea of a nation or something) - but from a practical standpoint I don't know if there would even be a United States if the situation unfolded this way - the government simply had no choice, and, I think other governments tried to obfuscate that fact and have their cake and eat it too whereas the U.S. and U.K. were pretty quick to decide and focused on their own citizens first. Certainly there is room for debate here and it's an interesting discussion to be had.

24 points by reddotX 6y ago

I mean, they don't have a leg to stand on, France that is. The UK supply chain started yield infrastructure build out in q1 2020 as paid for exclusively by the UK at the behest of the Jenner institute. French politics is transference and blame to deflect blame from the leadership. Currently they promised 10m by end of march in total vaccinated. But in seeing that wouldn't be possible they jumped at the chance to stop issuing it so they can lean on that excuse

blfr 6y ago
From what I understand, the EU has done poorly in the both in the negotiations and actually provisioning vaccines and it's not strictly an issue with leadership in any particular country. Beyond delegating their responsibility of course.
- hef19898 6y ago
  To be fair, the EU ordered around four doses per resident (incl. minors) already in January. With deliveries through, if I remember well, June to July to vaccinate everyone. And the EU explicitly called out the distribution and vaccination efforts in the member states to be the biggest challenge. And due to the nature of the EU, these were the sole responsibility of the member states. The EU did screw up in terms of communication and coordination. The former let to public and media pressure to order more, which negatively impacted short term availability, and the latter let to delays of the vaccination campaigns. The only way the EU could have improved that, so, would have been to serve as a clearing house coordinating exact delivery dates for members based on actual vaccination plans. without those plans, there is nothing the EU could have done. And at least Germany, the biggest member state, doesn't have a true plan. As shown when our government implemented a vaccination summit in Feb of 2021.
- JPLeRouzic 6y ago
  > and it's not strictly an issue with leadership in any particular country. The title says "France says" and it reports about a comment from France’s Industry Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher. The original article seems to be this one: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/8h30-fauvelle-dely/vaccin-astrazeneca-contrats-avec-l-union-europeenne-campagne-de-vaccination-le-8h30franceinfo-d-agnes-pannier-runacher_4316399.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https:/...

breakfastduck 6y ago

A bit fucking rich from France. This is the classic EU attitude of absolute overwhelming entitlement. They will never EVER admit that they fucked up.

sbuk 6y ago
They will never accept any culpability. I have elderly family living in France and they have said that medical professionals they have interacted with are livid with how their Govenment and the EU have handled this. The blame lies squarely at the EU's feet.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  I agree, unfortunately France are likely to hold the line rather than seriously criticize the EU publicly.
rvieira 6y ago
This is not "whataboutism", it's simply prompted by your "classic EU attitude: Was there a single resignation or admission of guilt from the UK goverment for one of worst responses to COVID19?
- nvoid 6y ago
  You can't really just precede a whataboutism with 'This is not "whataboutism"'. I agree Bojo's response has been shambolic but we are talking about the EU here.
- sbuk 6y ago
  Nearly all of the response to the pandemic from the Johnson Govenment has been shambolic, except for the vaccine roll-out, which is the NHS at it's best.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Very important to note that - the vaccine rollout has been handled by the NHS mainly and NOT the govt directly. One of the few things that has been handled properly.

gushie 6y ago

One minute they're suspending use of AstraZeneca, the next they're complaining they aren't getting enough deliveries of the vaccine they don't want to use.

IMTDb 6y ago

The EU was super happy on the negociations on the vaccine prices with AstraZeneca. They claimed that the grouped buy was a major reason why they were able to get such a cheap price (Around $2.15 / dose). The US and UK pays around $3 to $4 / dose. To compare, South Africa seems to be paying $5.25 to AstraZeneca. Pfizer vaccine costs $14.70/dose and Moderna $18. You can see why the EU is so dependent on AstraZeneca. It's all about injecting the cheapest vaccine as fast as possible. Basically, the EU got a super heavy discount on the vaccine price. This also mean that they are last on the line for deliveries. In times of hardship, any sensible business will satisfy clients who pay a significant premium for their product before delivering the noisy client that negociates super harshly and can't stop complaining about your product. Ursula von der Leyen needs to look herself in the mirror for the supposed "vaccine delivery issues". She willingly looked for the cheapest provider. When you imperatively need a product to be delivered and to work, you pay a premium for it, you don't look to reduce your costs as much as possible.

hef19898 6y ago
Isn't AZ forced into a non-profit scheme by the IP agreement with the University of Oxford?
- aneutron 6y ago
  I would love to hear more about this ? Any source on it ?
  - pityJuke 6y ago
    https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-23-oxford-university-breakthrough-global-covid-19-vaccine https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-23-oxford-university-break... (it is towards the end)
    - hef19898 6y ago
      Thanks for being faster!
- 6y ago

a_humean 6y ago

I bet Astrazeneca/Oxford is regretting offering to produce at cost due to the level of grief and politicking coming from EU capitals and the EU commission.

fenk85 6y ago
They didnt show any regret when taking hundreds of millions and making promises that they seem to knew they could not keep.
supergirl 6y ago
it just means they don't make a profit, officially, right? but they get paid to cover everything: workforce, R&D, opening extra plants, bonuses for executives, etc. I'm sure it's practically no different. just accounting magic. just the fact that they get paid to ramp up production is enough win. they'll leverage this to make profit later.
- a_humean 6y ago
  I just mean that if you name is going to get dragged through the mud you can forgive the feeling that maybe they should a profit out of it. All of their competitors are recording record profits from vaccine sales. Their only silver lining is they have sold a $250 million USD stake in Moderna for $1 billion this month.

twice_benny 6y ago

EU bureaucrats in disbelief that words on paper mean little in exigent times. This is one of the big problems with the EU when it comes to geopolitical issues and security. Way too dependent on diplomacy and then always get surprised when other entities simply break the rules. I guess maybe the lack of foresight is because they are used to lording it over the EU member states (with a couple of exceptions) and then expect non-EU states to be equally complacent. Instead of wasting time negotiating on price, they should have built manufacturing capacity within EU borders.

hef19898 6y ago
The EU followed a multi source strategy, the additional production capacity was only needed when the EU was kind of forced to order more. Even if that wasn't really needed, because more =|= faster, and faster was the real issue. The initial EU plan was to order more than needed, and share these doses with poorer countries outside the EU. Solid plan, badly communicated with badly negotiated contracts and a total lack of coordination and planning on behalf of the member states. As a result, we got the mess we have now.
fvdessen 6y ago
The EU has paid AstraZeneca to build manufacturing capacity within EU borders, but a big part of that capacity is used to supply the UK. AstraZeneca has also quite smartly been extremely slow to file the necessary paperwork to make those plants EU compliant so that even with export controls, the capacity of those plants cannot be used by Europe. Edit: The comment originally claimed that EU made vaccines were exported to the USA, this is actually not the case
- ericmay 6y ago
  Why is that? And why doesn’t the E.U. send police or military to stop shipments from leaving the E.U. if they are in violation of contractual obligations or law? But also, as E.U. member states are suspending the AstraZeneca vaccine why is it even a problem that the shipments are leaving the E.U.? I find the response and handling of the entire situation by the E.U. to be a bit perplexing.

cwhiz 6y ago

This is straight out of those GI Joe voiceover videos. Give us the vaccine! We’re suspending use of the vaccine! https://youtu.be/DXFdPTaCtkc https://youtu.be/DXFdPTaCtkc

TechBro8615 6y ago

I was told Brexit would crash the British economy. And yet now it's the EU begging the UK for a vaccine, the rate of GBP/USD is nearly at a 5 year high, and the UK has made serious progress vaccinating its population. Maybe the leavers were onto something?

a_humean 6y ago
Except goods exports are down 40%, large chunks of finance and services are being moved to Amsterdam and other EU capitals, and Northern Ireland is having trouble stocking its supermarket shelves while unionist paramilitary groups are renouncing the Good Friday Agreement. The developing story is that Brexit is a slow moving disaster for trade, services, and the stability in Northern Ireland. All of this was predicted.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Except goods exports are down 40% You're thinking of a few weeks in January. By February cross-border traffic was nearly back to normal (about 90% of similar traffic a year earlier but that's with lockdown, which surely reduces trade). large chunks of finance and services are being moved to Amsterdam No, only trading of EU shares which isn't a big market for London to begin with. London has a huge finance ecosystem with many components that have nothing to do with the EU at all. Northern Ireland is having trouble stocking its supermarket shelves That cuts both ways. There have also been problems with supermarket shelves in Europe: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1395267/EU-news-supermarkets-shortages-Belgium-Brexit-UK-EU-trade-deal-latest-vn https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1395267/EU-news-supe... These problems are being resolved over time. One issue is that the EU has pulled out all the stops to make exports from the UK as painful as possible via various forms of malicious rule-enforcement. The UK has not retaliated in kind and in fact is waiving the rules for a while to let EU exporters learn the ropes. Examples of "malicious rule enforcement" are goods being rejected at the border due to a spelling error in the Latin name of a fish, sandwiches being confiscated from truck drivers, etc. The EU is essentially a protectionist bloc and has got very good at erecting trade barriers through complex certification and tax rules. There are no technical reasons for most of these new requirements. UK standards and enforcement have not changed from before. However EU has no interest in recognising the reality on the ground, they are interested in finding ways to incentivise membership and empower the Commission. We now see what other all other non-European countries have to pointlessly suffer through when trying to trade with the UK previously - not pleasant. One thing to bear in mind is that whilst the EU is increasing friction with UK/EU trade, it is now possible to reduce friction with other parts of the world. Already there has been a mini trade deal with the USA such that, for example, 25% tariffs on Scottish whisky are being dropped. So trade gets harder with Europe but is getting easier with other parts of the world. As for peace in Northern Ireland, it wasn't the UK that just weeks ago tried to impose a hard border there, was it? So much for the EU being dedicated to peace in NI. They give fine words but it lasted less than a month before they violated all those agreements and had to be forced to back down by a massive rebellion.

thu2111 6y ago

So the proximate issue appears to be lack of government approval for a new factory in the Netherlands. The contract issue has been done to death: the contracts the EU signed talk about best efforts. They don't actually seem to contain any penalties for "late" delivery. AZ must surely see the EU as a colossal pain in the rear by now. If EU want to be treated as higher priority they're doing it all wrong because repeatedly abusing and pissing off the people who can make your vaccine is not a smart move. So far we have seen: • EU leaders haggled for months over cost and didn't sign early contracts, despite AZ producing it not-for-profit. • EU publicly claimed AZ were in violation of contract. AZ denied it. Then the Commission released the contract redacted, but they redacted it incorrectly which let people see the EU was lying and AZ was telling the truth. • EU regulators reached same decision as UK regulators but much slower. At one point when asked why they still hadn't approved it, their answer was something like "AZ didn't contact us yet". Apparently proactively reaching out was not imaginable. • Multiple EU leaders then claimed the vaccine didn't work, which turned out to be another lie. • Then they briefly attempted to violate the supposedly sacrosanct and inviolable Northern Ireland protocol to stop AZ vaccine being exported from the EU (which didn't have any) to the UK (which had lots). Beyond making no sense at all this also showed the EU had been lying again for years during the Brexit negotiations, as they repeatedly claimed to be totally committed to NI peace process and would never accept anything that could lead to a border. All tossed out the window just weeks after the UK/EU transition period ended. • EU repeatedly claimed to hate vaccine nationalism and find it totally unacceptable. Then they blocked export of AZ vaccine meant for Australia from Italy. Then they lied again and claimed the UK had blocked exports of vaccine materials to the EU, which had never happened. • Now they started claiming the vaccine is dangerous, although according to AZ this is once again not supported by the data (similar to the claim it doesn't work). [1] • And today they are again claiming AZ is not honouring the contracts, despite having totally failed to produce evidence this is true or even, as far as I know, start a court case related to this supposed violation. By now the EU/AZ/UK relationship is a disaster zone. EU leaderships just continually obfuscate and make outright false statements about the vaccine and the people who make it. They're lucky AZ is still willing to work with them at all. [1] https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/update-on-the-safety-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca.html https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021...

supergirl 6y ago

suddenly HN is keen on defending big pharma. if this happened in the US I can't even imagine the outcry. also, it seems this thread is overrun by brexiteers looking for a win. the EU signed a contract in good faith but AZ decided it's a big boy and will not honor it, based on some contract technicalities. risky bet. US from the start blocked vaccine exports, putting "americans first". EU mistakenly allowed exports but because of AZ we can't have nice things happening. so now their exports are blocked and other countries will suffer: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccines-export-idUKKBN2AW1EK https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-eu-vac....

ericmay 6y ago
> US from the start blocked vaccine exports Not sure how I feel about this. I can't help but think: "can't help others if you don't put your oxygen mask on first". It's also hard to see how Americans in particular (and fairly enough any country) wouldn't go absolutely bananas if the government made this huge deal out of COVID-19 and then turn around and exported vaccines to other countries while half a million people were dead. Certainly at least some of this discussion would depend on where you start from (i.e. maybe you're against the idea of a nation or something) - but from a practical standpoint I don't know if there would even be a United States if the situation unfolded this way - the government simply had no choice, and, I think other governments tried to obfuscate that fact and have their cake and eat it too whereas the U.S. and U.K. were pretty quick to decide and focused on their own citizens first. Certainly there is room for debate here and it's an interesting discussion to be had.