5 ms·

Did the UK do something to warrant that sort of behavior from the EU, or are the EU officials just pissed that the UK vaccinations are going reasonably well?

dane-pgp 6y ago
My understanding is that the EU just got unlucky that it was a manufacturing facility in Belgium that encountered problems in producing the vaccine, and AstraZeneca decided that the EU should be the only customers who should be inconvenienced by this problem. I don't know what contractual basis there is for demanding that the UK's supply be slowed in order to mitigate AstraZeneca's failure to meet its commitments to the EU, but there is at least a superficial logic to the idea that countries which are ahead in their rollout should be the ones whose supply is redirected.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  Vaccine production facilities all over the world have had similar difficulties. Some of the UK-based facilities also had some setbacks early on, but the UK was faster than the EU in getting its vaccination programme going and those problems have largely been solved by now, while some EU-based facilities are still working them out. The UK isn't completely isolated from these risks even today: its government has just announced it's anticipating a reduction in supply over the next few weeks due to a delayed shipment from India. None of this is entirely unexpected, because these manufacturing facilities are being asked to work much faster than they normally would due to the urgent need for this particular set of vaccines. Contractually, the EU-AZ deal appears to be a mess, going by the (partially redacted) public documentation. It's not clear that AZ actually did make the commitment to the EU that the EU thinks it did, while AZ's contractual obligations to the UK don't seem to be in dispute. Certain EU leaders have also claimed that the UK has restricted vaccine exports, but the UK government has absolutely denied this; it's seen as a contractual matter between AZ and its customers, not a matter of the UK government imposing export controls (unlike several other places, including within the EU).
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > it's seen as a contractual matter between AZ and its customers, not a matter of the UK government imposing export controls To be clear, the customer of AZ in this case is the UK government, and I don't think we know what conditions they put into their contract with AZ. If the UK foresaw the potential of localised production failures and bound AZ not to use that as an excuse to restrict supply to the UK, then that would have been very prudent of the government, but that wouldn't excuse AZ weaselling their way out of commitments they made to the EU. Having said that, if the EU are relying on their interpretation of a vague contract, then they have to accept the political consequences when AZ act on a different interpretation. Unfortunately a lot of people will take the side of AZ in such a dispute even if the EU's interpretation is correct, especially if that correctness is determined by an EU court.
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      To be clear, the customer of AZ in this case is the UK government, and I don't think we know what conditions they put into their contract with AZ. The customers of AZ in this case are the UK and many foreign governments. They each have their own contracts. Some of the details have been made public, others have not. It's been widely reported that the UK has a guarantee of 100M doses supplied before AZ starts exports, which seems pretty clear. Given the UK government's other actions, not least in apparently pushing Oxford to work with AZ in the first place, it seems not only plausible but likely that they did consider the potential risks you mentioned and incorporate safeguards into the contract accordingly. We've seen a slightly redacted version of the EU contract, and their claims about AZ's level of commitments are at best debatable. It's also worth noting that the EU contract includes specific conditions relating to early doses and manufacture in EU-based facilities, with explicit distinctions being made about when that term does (or, by implication, doesn't) include UK-based facilities. The EU has conveniently ignored those aspects of its contract while criticising AZ for the delays. Unfortunately a lot of people will take the side of AZ in such a dispute even if the EU's interpretation is correct, especially if that correctness is determined by an EU court. Why is that unfortunate? The way the EU is trying to bully others to cover for its own mistakes here is very disappointing and a horrible precedent would be set if the EU actually tried to follow through on its threats. As the submitted article mentions, it would probably also be an act of self-harm by the EU to do so, not just for the long-term political and diplomatic damage it would do, but also because other nations affected including the UK might be in a position to retaliate directly if they chose to do so.
Silhouette 6y ago
The UK makes a convenient scapegoat. The EU leadership, and the leadership of several prominent EU member states, have not handled the vaccine issue well. In contrast, at least on this issue, the UK leadership's response to the coronavirus has been relatively good so far, partly because it chose not to participate in the EU vaccination programme and instead made its own arrangements. That would look bad for the EU leaders at the best of times, but in a newly post-Brexit relationship, the optics are particularly harmful. The virus has shown, in the most direct and personal of ways, that some criticisms of the EU made by the more reasonable Leave supporters in the UK did have elements of truth to them. The almost Trumpian misrepresentations and doubling down from some of the EU and member state leaders in recent days might have been embarrassing and a cause for some friendly Schadenfreude in the UK media under other circumstances, but when people are literally dying as a result, there's no funny side, it's just awful.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > the UK leadership's response to the coronavirus has been relatively good so far Which actions specifically would you say the UK leadership carried out which the EU leadership failed to carry out? Obviously the failure at the Belgian plant wasn't a decision made by the EU, and the AstraZeneca vaccine was approved in the EU less than a month after it was approved in the UK, so it's not clear that there was excessive bureaucracy by the EU (or, conversely, insufficient scrutiny by the UK authorities). The only other major factors I can think of are the amounts spent per dose by the UK versus the EU (which is a difficult economic question) and the fact that the UK has the centralised infrastructure of the NHS, which is certainly an advantage but not something the current UK leadership can take the credit for.
  - neximo64 6y ago
    1) At risk exposure commitments (vs preorders). The Eu didn’t want to take risk and only wanted to pay upfront for what can be delivered. The uk got a VC to allocate risk and pick vaccines (Kate Bingham) vs a Sandra Gallina who was focused on lower prices. If vaccines failed the Uk govt lost money vs the EU approach where nothing would be lost since its just a pre-order. This is the reason the Uk govt insisted on being supplied first. 2) Sourcing multiple vaccine candidates early on & focusing on speed (vs national equity such as France’s insistence on Sanofi matching Biontech). Sanofi's candidate failed/was too slow in the end and is almost a primary reason for the EU failure. 3) Brewing early, AZ had similar issues as they do in the EU and was late in the UK as well. The vaccines were expected in October but were pushed to end December because of similar problems as are happening in Belgium. It takes 3 months to fix a brew so its not easy to deal with. The UK govt got an Indian firm to help get some technical expertise to get that brew to scale faster (partnership approach) 4) Securing low dead volume syringes early on - allowing up to 7 doses vs 5 from a vial. The Eu only started to look in December whereas the NHS got them in June. 5) Centralised NHS database to find candidates to test the vaccine on for phase 3 trials within the UK/Regulatory nimbleness. Having the trials in the UK allowed them to be monitored far more closely. 6) Focus on enabling onshore manufacturing. The govt specifically replaced Merck with AZ to ensure this, so blockades were in control and other key ingredients were made onshore for other candidates (such as the Pfizer vaccine). 7) Partnership approach with AZ/Pfizer, etc in ecuring supplies using the RAF. Where something wasn't available onshore the RAF was sent to personally pick up anything in another country and no expense was spared. It looked a bit dodgy because this part was done using shorthand process where parliamentary scrutiny wasn't properly applied. Covid locked up transport so vaccine makers were asked what they needed and the Uk govt helped secure it vs leaving it to the manufacturers to secure it.

dane-pgp 6y ago

My understanding is that the EU just got unlucky that it was a manufacturing facility in Belgium that encountered problems in producing the vaccine, and AstraZeneca decided that the EU should be the only customers who should be inconvenienced by this problem. I don't know what contractual basis there is for demanding that the UK's supply be slowed in order to mitigate AstraZeneca's failure to meet its commitments to the EU, but there is at least a superficial logic to the idea that countries which are ahead in their rollout should be the ones whose supply is redirected.

Silhouette 6y ago
Vaccine production facilities all over the world have had similar difficulties. Some of the UK-based facilities also had some setbacks early on, but the UK was faster than the EU in getting its vaccination programme going and those problems have largely been solved by now, while some EU-based facilities are still working them out. The UK isn't completely isolated from these risks even today: its government has just announced it's anticipating a reduction in supply over the next few weeks due to a delayed shipment from India. None of this is entirely unexpected, because these manufacturing facilities are being asked to work much faster than they normally would due to the urgent need for this particular set of vaccines. Contractually, the EU-AZ deal appears to be a mess, going by the (partially redacted) public documentation. It's not clear that AZ actually did make the commitment to the EU that the EU thinks it did, while AZ's contractual obligations to the UK don't seem to be in dispute. Certain EU leaders have also claimed that the UK has restricted vaccine exports, but the UK government has absolutely denied this; it's seen as a contractual matter between AZ and its customers, not a matter of the UK government imposing export controls (unlike several other places, including within the EU).
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > it's seen as a contractual matter between AZ and its customers, not a matter of the UK government imposing export controls To be clear, the customer of AZ in this case is the UK government, and I don't think we know what conditions they put into their contract with AZ. If the UK foresaw the potential of localised production failures and bound AZ not to use that as an excuse to restrict supply to the UK, then that would have been very prudent of the government, but that wouldn't excuse AZ weaselling their way out of commitments they made to the EU. Having said that, if the EU are relying on their interpretation of a vague contract, then they have to accept the political consequences when AZ act on a different interpretation. Unfortunately a lot of people will take the side of AZ in such a dispute even if the EU's interpretation is correct, especially if that correctness is determined by an EU court.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    To be clear, the customer of AZ in this case is the UK government, and I don't think we know what conditions they put into their contract with AZ. The customers of AZ in this case are the UK and many foreign governments. They each have their own contracts. Some of the details have been made public, others have not. It's been widely reported that the UK has a guarantee of 100M doses supplied before AZ starts exports, which seems pretty clear. Given the UK government's other actions, not least in apparently pushing Oxford to work with AZ in the first place, it seems not only plausible but likely that they did consider the potential risks you mentioned and incorporate safeguards into the contract accordingly. We've seen a slightly redacted version of the EU contract, and their claims about AZ's level of commitments are at best debatable. It's also worth noting that the EU contract includes specific conditions relating to early doses and manufacture in EU-based facilities, with explicit distinctions being made about when that term does (or, by implication, doesn't) include UK-based facilities. The EU has conveniently ignored those aspects of its contract while criticising AZ for the delays. Unfortunately a lot of people will take the side of AZ in such a dispute even if the EU's interpretation is correct, especially if that correctness is determined by an EU court. Why is that unfortunate? The way the EU is trying to bully others to cover for its own mistakes here is very disappointing and a horrible precedent would be set if the EU actually tried to follow through on its threats. As the submitted article mentions, it would probably also be an act of self-harm by the EU to do so, not just for the long-term political and diplomatic damage it would do, but also because other nations affected including the UK might be in a position to retaliate directly if they chose to do so.

Silhouette 6y ago

The UK makes a convenient scapegoat. The EU leadership, and the leadership of several prominent EU member states, have not handled the vaccine issue well. In contrast, at least on this issue, the UK leadership's response to the coronavirus has been relatively good so far, partly because it chose not to participate in the EU vaccination programme and instead made its own arrangements. That would look bad for the EU leaders at the best of times, but in a newly post-Brexit relationship, the optics are particularly harmful. The virus has shown, in the most direct and personal of ways, that some criticisms of the EU made by the more reasonable Leave supporters in the UK did have elements of truth to them. The almost Trumpian misrepresentations and doubling down from some of the EU and member state leaders in recent days might have been embarrassing and a cause for some friendly Schadenfreude in the UK media under other circumstances, but when people are literally dying as a result, there's no funny side, it's just awful.

dane-pgp 6y ago
> the UK leadership's response to the coronavirus has been relatively good so far Which actions specifically would you say the UK leadership carried out which the EU leadership failed to carry out? Obviously the failure at the Belgian plant wasn't a decision made by the EU, and the AstraZeneca vaccine was approved in the EU less than a month after it was approved in the UK, so it's not clear that there was excessive bureaucracy by the EU (or, conversely, insufficient scrutiny by the UK authorities). The only other major factors I can think of are the amounts spent per dose by the UK versus the EU (which is a difficult economic question) and the fact that the UK has the centralised infrastructure of the NHS, which is certainly an advantage but not something the current UK leadership can take the credit for.
- neximo64 6y ago
  1) At risk exposure commitments (vs preorders). The Eu didn’t want to take risk and only wanted to pay upfront for what can be delivered. The uk got a VC to allocate risk and pick vaccines (Kate Bingham) vs a Sandra Gallina who was focused on lower prices. If vaccines failed the Uk govt lost money vs the EU approach where nothing would be lost since its just a pre-order. This is the reason the Uk govt insisted on being supplied first. 2) Sourcing multiple vaccine candidates early on & focusing on speed (vs national equity such as France’s insistence on Sanofi matching Biontech). Sanofi's candidate failed/was too slow in the end and is almost a primary reason for the EU failure. 3) Brewing early, AZ had similar issues as they do in the EU and was late in the UK as well. The vaccines were expected in October but were pushed to end December because of similar problems as are happening in Belgium. It takes 3 months to fix a brew so its not easy to deal with. The UK govt got an Indian firm to help get some technical expertise to get that brew to scale faster (partnership approach) 4) Securing low dead volume syringes early on - allowing up to 7 doses vs 5 from a vial. The Eu only started to look in December whereas the NHS got them in June. 5) Centralised NHS database to find candidates to test the vaccine on for phase 3 trials within the UK/Regulatory nimbleness. Having the trials in the UK allowed them to be monitored far more closely. 6) Focus on enabling onshore manufacturing. The govt specifically replaced Merck with AZ to ensure this, so blockades were in control and other key ingredients were made onshore for other candidates (such as the Pfizer vaccine). 7) Partnership approach with AZ/Pfizer, etc in ecuring supplies using the RAF. Where something wasn't available onshore the RAF was sent to personally pick up anything in another country and no expense was spared. It looked a bit dodgy because this part was done using shorthand process where parliamentary scrutiny wasn't properly applied. Covid locked up transport so vaccine makers were asked what they needed and the Uk govt helped secure it vs leaving it to the manufacturers to secure it.