6 ms·

Because it makes for a great excuse for their failure to negotiate their vaccine contracts. The US/UK contracts have a US/UK first clause whereas the EU's don't

Because it makes for a great excuse for their failure to negotiate their vaccine contracts. The US/UK contracts have a US/UK first clause whereas the EU's don't, despite them being the first to sign with AstraZeneca for example. Now they are stuck exporting vaccines to the rest of the world.

throwaway4good 6y ago
While it is true that the eu got screwed by the us and the uk - there is no conspiracy wrt the temporary stoppage of the az roll out - the blood clots were first reported in Norway which is not in the eu.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  How the EU got screwed by the UK and the US is nicely laid out here: https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803
  - makomk 6y ago
    Pretty sure this is wrong. The UK and the EU paid to set up separate supply chains for the AstraZeneca vaccine, with the UK having first dibs on the output of the UK one (which ended up with better yields, likely in part due to being agreed on and set up first). The EU kept on blaming AstraZeneca's failure to supply enough vaccines to EU countries on them exporting the EU-produced ones to the UK, but as far as I know there's no evidence that ever happened despite police raids on the production facilities and new requirements to get licenses to export vaccines. Also the numbers don't add up at all. The AstraZeneca vaccine is also the only one with this kind of segregated supply chain, apparently as some kind of contingency plan against vaccine nationalism cutting off imports. All the others, the UK has been content to order from plants within the EU and trust that they won't pull some cynical, Trump-esque vaccine nationalism stunt and cut off exports to distract from their own problems. This appears to have been a serious misjudgement. (And to be clear, distracting from their own problems is pretty much all it would achieve. The UK is so much smaller than the EU that cutting off exports would give very little help to their own vaccine roll-out despite causing massive disruption to the UK one - and that's before even considering the possibility of retaliation.)
    - the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
      > The UK and the EU paid to set up separate supply chains for the AstraZeneca vaccine, with the UK having first dibs on the output of the UK one The UK is included in the contract of the EU the same way as the EU is included in the one of the EU. That's why there are discussions about the export of vaccine to begin with. Right now AZ exports a few millions of doses out of the EU to the UK.
the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
The medial regulators are not nearly as political as commenters think. There are legitimate concerns in smaller countries about the vaccine because even just few cases of deaths if young people quickly outweigh the number of young people died from covid.
viseztrance 6y ago
> Because it makes for a great excuse for their failure to negotiate their vaccine contracts. This argument is beyond ridiculous. It was the decision of health officials, and it wasn't just countries part of eu that have suspended AZ vaccinations.
raverbashing 6y ago
Misleading narrative > The US/UK contracts have a US/UK first clause whereas the EU's don't True, and you can see how the UK gov is fearing the export block. Darned if the EU does, darned if it doesn't. But if doing means more vaccines to the EU so be it. Though yes, it was probably a mistake treating AZ as a reliable partner and not someone who'll try find any excuses to skip on their obligations. Though it will be hard to convince a judge they're filling their "best effort" requirements
- kcartlidge 6y ago
  > "it was probably a mistake treating AZ as a reliable partner and not someone who'll try find any excuses to skip on their obligations." Given they had prior obligations to the UK, I'd say they've been a very reliable partner - to the extent of risking annoying a major market by saying no to the EU.
alvah 6y ago
"the EU's don't, despite them being the first to sign with AstraZeneca" That's an unusual way to write "The EU signed 3 months after the UK"
- the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
  The EU signed a day before the UK.
  - alvah 6y ago
    The UK was a beneficiary of the original contract signed on May 17. The EU signed its contract on August 27, the day before another contract was signed by the UK. (edited to clarify dates)

throwaway4good 6y ago

While it is true that the eu got screwed by the us and the uk - there is no conspiracy wrt the temporary stoppage of the az roll out - the blood clots were first reported in Norway which is not in the eu.

throwaway4good 6y ago
How the EU got screwed by the UK and the US is nicely laid out here: https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803
- makomk 6y ago
  Pretty sure this is wrong. The UK and the EU paid to set up separate supply chains for the AstraZeneca vaccine, with the UK having first dibs on the output of the UK one (which ended up with better yields, likely in part due to being agreed on and set up first). The EU kept on blaming AstraZeneca's failure to supply enough vaccines to EU countries on them exporting the EU-produced ones to the UK, but as far as I know there's no evidence that ever happened despite police raids on the production facilities and new requirements to get licenses to export vaccines. Also the numbers don't add up at all. The AstraZeneca vaccine is also the only one with this kind of segregated supply chain, apparently as some kind of contingency plan against vaccine nationalism cutting off imports. All the others, the UK has been content to order from plants within the EU and trust that they won't pull some cynical, Trump-esque vaccine nationalism stunt and cut off exports to distract from their own problems. This appears to have been a serious misjudgement. (And to be clear, distracting from their own problems is pretty much all it would achieve. The UK is so much smaller than the EU that cutting off exports would give very little help to their own vaccine roll-out despite causing massive disruption to the UK one - and that's before even considering the possibility of retaliation.)
  - the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
    > The UK and the EU paid to set up separate supply chains for the AstraZeneca vaccine, with the UK having first dibs on the output of the UK one The UK is included in the contract of the EU the same way as the EU is included in the one of the EU. That's why there are discussions about the export of vaccine to begin with. Right now AZ exports a few millions of doses out of the EU to the UK.

the_mitsuhiko 6y ago

The medial regulators are not nearly as political as commenters think. There are legitimate concerns in smaller countries about the vaccine because even just few cases of deaths if young people quickly outweigh the number of young people died from covid.

viseztrance 6y ago

> Because it makes for a great excuse for their failure to negotiate their vaccine contracts. This argument is beyond ridiculous. It was the decision of health officials, and it wasn't just countries part of eu that have suspended AZ vaccinations.

raverbashing 6y ago

Misleading narrative > The US/UK contracts have a US/UK first clause whereas the EU's don't True, and you can see how the UK gov is fearing the export block. Darned if the EU does, darned if it doesn't. But if doing means more vaccines to the EU so be it. Though yes, it was probably a mistake treating AZ as a reliable partner and not someone who'll try find any excuses to skip on their obligations. Though it will be hard to convince a judge they're filling their "best effort" requirements

kcartlidge 6y ago
> "it was probably a mistake treating AZ as a reliable partner and not someone who'll try find any excuses to skip on their obligations." Given they had prior obligations to the UK, I'd say they've been a very reliable partner - to the extent of risking annoying a major market by saying no to the EU.

alvah 6y ago

"the EU's don't, despite them being the first to sign with AstraZeneca" That's an unusual way to write "The EU signed 3 months after the UK"

the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
The EU signed a day before the UK.
- alvah 6y ago
  The UK was a beneficiary of the original contract signed on May 17. The EU signed its contract on August 27, the day before another contract was signed by the UK. (edited to clarify dates)