8 ms·

From the other AZ thread: https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 In summary: UK

by tpmx 6y ago

From the other AZ thread: https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 In summary: UK (and US) screwed EU. Now EU is screwing UK back.

breakfastduck 6y ago
I've posted this before but it's important. We did not screw them. We just wrote a decent contract, and they wrote an awful one. Essentially whether the UK contract has been fulfilled is pretty black and white where the EU one is significantly less so. See below: > "The level of specificity is partially due to the legal systems they're based on. The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith. It's these extra details that give the U.K. more leverage to ensure its contract is delivered effectively. While both contracts say all parties will make their “best reasonable effort” to deliver the vaccine, the U.K. government is clearer in asserting its oversight of the agreement. This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text, can be chalked up to the fact that the contract sealed with London was written by people with significant experience of purchasing agreements, specifically drug-buying deals. The European Commission’s contract, by contrast, shows a lack of commercial common sense, in the lawyer’s view. The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted. "[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between- https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
- Tehnix 6y ago
  > We did not screw them. We just wrote a decent contract, and they wrote an awful one. Screwing someone in writing is still screwing them. By your same logic, the EU hasn't screwed anyone, since it's within legal powers to do what it's doing - i.e. it's in the contract of being in the EU.
  - martinald 6y ago
    Let's see if it is legal. I'm not sure it is, for example why are they just doing AZ and not Pfizer (despite Pfizer exporting WAY more than AZ)? Also, there are significant unused stockpiles of AZ all over Europe (and very few Pfizer stockpiled). If anything it should be the other way round. IANAL though.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    We didn't screw them. They screwed themselves by writing a nonsense contract written by people who don't have a clue.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    So so-called "AstraZeneca" vaccine was developed by Oxford University using British government funds (as least in part). They made a deal with AstraZeneca to bring it to the market and insisted that it had to be sold at cost worldwide. Does that sound like "screwing" anyone? The EU has handled the pandemic badly overall, and especially the vaccine. They are making noise as a way to distract and deflect and apparently their public opinion is buying it. They are also complaining about supply of AZ vaccine while, at the same time, trying hard to destroy that vaccine's reputation (so that some people don't want it). This is incomprehensible.
bof_ 6y ago
Sorry, but Dave Keating is not a honest broker here, pretty rabidly pro EU.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Could you please try to provide any sort of sourcing for your statement? You might be right, but how is anyone supposed to take what you say as fact if you don't provide any evidence? Just being Pro-EU doesn't mean the reporting on this vaccine-drama is inaccurate. It means we probably need to be careful of what they are saying, but doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.
  - bof_ 6y ago
    Quite right, if only all comments on hn came backed with evidence. ;) https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129930264948748 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129930264948748 1 tweet is not evidence of bias in itself, though, if you've been following along since Brexit it's pretty obvious. I invite you to spent 10 minutes looking through his twitter feed and judge for yourself.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Do you think the original he's criticizing (available at https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129935826575360/photo/1 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129935826575360/p...) was fair?
- czzr 6y ago
  What specifically do you think he got wrong in the thread? That’s more useful to know, rather than name-calling.
  - bof_ 6y ago
    "EU assumed good behavior. US & UK manoeuvred to benefit themselves." Assuming that is true, which it isn't, on what basis did the EU assume good behaviour?
martinald 6y ago
That's not what the thread says? It says that the EU/Germany should have insisted on a European partner for BioNTech. I don't see how the UK insisting on a British partner for Oxford is 'screwing' the EU, given the fact we were leaving the EU around this time and Trump was not known for his globalist worldview at the time.
- tpmx 6y ago
  From the summary at the end of the thread: "What mistakes did EU make? To me it seems obvious. EU took decisions based on an assumption of a free market and good faith from its partners. They didn’t think forcing an EU partner on BioNTech was essential, or EU plants should be for Europeans 1st. That now appears naive. EU assumed good behavior. US & UK manoeuvred to benefit themselves."
  - martinald 6y ago
    Is that screwing someone or just naivety/incompetence from the EU? Why on earth did they think Trump would play fair?
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      It's their naïvety / arrogance
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - tpmx 6y ago
      I'm guessing they thought Biden would play fair.
      - martinald 6y ago
        But there was no guarantee that Biden would win the election then.
cmrdporcupine 6y ago
In the end it's just more of the breakdown of the trans-atlantic cooperative model that kept western (and especially the Anglo/American countries) economies relatively integrated for the last few decades and which broke down significantly after the election of Trump. This has been especially difficult for us in Canada where our dependant relationship with the US ("sleeping with an elephant") has screwed us not just on vaccine supply but on other geopolitical issues (China imprisoning our citizens as proxy conflict with the US, trade conflict over steel and aluminum and dairy, etc.). If you traveled back 15-20 years and told people at the time that there would be a situation where Canada would be poor in vaccine supply while the US was drowning in it, people would be a bit shocked. During the Clinton/Chretien era this kind of lack of cooperation would be unheard of, continental integration was the agenda of the day. Some of this is now alleviating with Biden at the helm, but it's still not a good situation. We just "borrowed" 1.5M doses of AstraZeneca from the US that they weren't using, but that's really a drop in the bucket. So yeah, it's not just EU vs UK, it's a whole situation, the breakdown of the neo-liberal concensus. It's not clear what replaces it.
- juanani 6y ago
  >China imprisoning our citizens as proxy conflict with the US Was that retaliatory for Canada imprisoning a Chinese citizen in the name of US sanctions against Iran? I am curious which came first since I haven't followed it closely.(no justifying, just wondering why this is the example you brought up)
  - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
    Yes, retaliation for honoring our extradition treaty with the US, in a conflict initiated by the Trump admin.
- pseudo0 6y ago
  Remember the softwood lumber dispute (billions of dollars and years of legal wrangling) or the flak Chretien caught from the US for keeping Canada out of Iraq? I think you're looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses.
maxerickson 6y ago
The US did make big purchase commitments for the mRNA and J&J vaccines before EU though, months before, which he just dances past.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
The UK made a deal so that the vaccine they developed could be manufactured and used abroad and insisted that it should be sold at cost (which means that the vaccine is very cheap). How is that "screwing" the EU? In the meantime the EU has worked hard to try to destroy AZ vaccine's reputation...
- neilsense 6y ago
  It's not, but a Twitter thread is apparently how we judge truth now. If France's vaccine had worked and AZ failed, the tables would have been turned. This also completely ignores that the Oxford/AZ vaccine is what is driving vaccinations around the world right now for ~$3 a pop. Somehow UK is both the devil and an angel in this scenario.
neilsense 6y ago
Twitter threads aren't truth. And Dave Keating has his blue-tinted spectacles with this version of the 'truth'.
- mariusor 6y ago
  To which claim of his exactly are you objecting to? Did US export vaccine doses to its neighbours or anyone else? Did UK export vaccine doses to the EU?
  - kcartlidge 6y ago
    > Did UK export vaccine doses to the EU? I'm not commenting on Dave as I've no idea what he said/wrote, I'm replying to the above as it's a commonly held point that the EU shipped does to the UK and the UK has not reciprocated. And this is very much not true. The EU does not make any vaccine, and so by definition has not shipped any doses to the UK. A private company (AZ) has contracts that include manufacturing in the EU and shipping into the UK. This has nothing to do with the EU as an entity at all; it is simple private trade. If the EU couldn't come up with an enforcable private contract going the other way, that's on them. And even if AZ are somehow in the wrong on the EU contract, it's still private contracts between them and the EU and has nothing to do with the UK government, so why should it be 'obliged' to send any back? After all, the UK (as an entity) also doesn't produce vaccines and so has none to send in any event.

by tpmx 6y ago

breakfastduck 6y ago

I've posted this before but it's important. We did not screw them. We just wrote a decent contract, and they wrote an awful one. Essentially whether the UK contract has been fulfilled is pretty black and white where the EU one is significantly less so. See below: > "The level of specificity is partially due to the legal systems they're based on. The U.K. contract is written in English law, which will judge whether both parties delivered the goods based on the exact wording of the contract. The EU contract is written in Belgian law, which focuses on whether both parties tried their best to deliver the goods and acted in good faith. It's these extra details that give the U.K. more leverage to ensure its contract is delivered effectively. While both contracts say all parties will make their “best reasonable effort” to deliver the vaccine, the U.K. government is clearer in asserting its oversight of the agreement. This core difference, according to a lawyer familiar with the development of the U.K. text, can be chalked up to the fact that the contract sealed with London was written by people with significant experience of purchasing agreements, specifically drug-buying deals. The European Commission’s contract, by contrast, shows a lack of commercial common sense, in the lawyer’s view. The starkest example of this difference is a clause in the U.K. contract stating that if any party tries to force or persuade AstraZeneca or its subcontractors to do anything that could hold up the supply of the vaccine doses, the government may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses — although these are largely redacted. "[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between- https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...

Tehnix 6y ago
> We did not screw them. We just wrote a decent contract, and they wrote an awful one. Screwing someone in writing is still screwing them. By your same logic, the EU hasn't screwed anyone, since it's within legal powers to do what it's doing - i.e. it's in the contract of being in the EU.
- martinald 6y ago
  Let's see if it is legal. I'm not sure it is, for example why are they just doing AZ and not Pfizer (despite Pfizer exporting WAY more than AZ)? Also, there are significant unused stockpiles of AZ all over Europe (and very few Pfizer stockpiled). If anything it should be the other way round. IANAL though.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  We didn't screw them. They screwed themselves by writing a nonsense contract written by people who don't have a clue.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  So so-called "AstraZeneca" vaccine was developed by Oxford University using British government funds (as least in part). They made a deal with AstraZeneca to bring it to the market and insisted that it had to be sold at cost worldwide. Does that sound like "screwing" anyone? The EU has handled the pandemic badly overall, and especially the vaccine. They are making noise as a way to distract and deflect and apparently their public opinion is buying it. They are also complaining about supply of AZ vaccine while, at the same time, trying hard to destroy that vaccine's reputation (so that some people don't want it). This is incomprehensible.

bof_ 6y ago

Sorry, but Dave Keating is not a honest broker here, pretty rabidly pro EU.

capableweb 6y ago
Could you please try to provide any sort of sourcing for your statement? You might be right, but how is anyone supposed to take what you say as fact if you don't provide any evidence? Just being Pro-EU doesn't mean the reporting on this vaccine-drama is inaccurate. It means we probably need to be careful of what they are saying, but doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.
- bof_ 6y ago
  Quite right, if only all comments on hn came backed with evidence. ;) https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129930264948748 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129930264948748 1 tweet is not evidence of bias in itself, though, if you've been following along since Brexit it's pretty obvious. I invite you to spent 10 minutes looking through his twitter feed and judge for yourself.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Do you think the original he's criticizing (available at https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129935826575360/photo/1 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1351129935826575360/p...) was fair?
czzr 6y ago
What specifically do you think he got wrong in the thread? That’s more useful to know, rather than name-calling.
- bof_ 6y ago
  "EU assumed good behavior. US & UK manoeuvred to benefit themselves." Assuming that is true, which it isn't, on what basis did the EU assume good behaviour?

martinald 6y ago

That's not what the thread says? It says that the EU/Germany should have insisted on a European partner for BioNTech. I don't see how the UK insisting on a British partner for Oxford is 'screwing' the EU, given the fact we were leaving the EU around this time and Trump was not known for his globalist worldview at the time.

tpmx 6y ago
From the summary at the end of the thread: "What mistakes did EU make? To me it seems obvious. EU took decisions based on an assumption of a free market and good faith from its partners. They didn’t think forcing an EU partner on BioNTech was essential, or EU plants should be for Europeans 1st. That now appears naive. EU assumed good behavior. US & UK manoeuvred to benefit themselves."
- martinald 6y ago
  Is that screwing someone or just naivety/incompetence from the EU? Why on earth did they think Trump would play fair?
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    It's their naïvety / arrogance
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - tpmx 6y ago
    I'm guessing they thought Biden would play fair.
    - martinald 6y ago
      But there was no guarantee that Biden would win the election then.

cmrdporcupine 6y ago

In the end it's just more of the breakdown of the trans-atlantic cooperative model that kept western (and especially the Anglo/American countries) economies relatively integrated for the last few decades and which broke down significantly after the election of Trump. This has been especially difficult for us in Canada where our dependant relationship with the US ("sleeping with an elephant") has screwed us not just on vaccine supply but on other geopolitical issues (China imprisoning our citizens as proxy conflict with the US, trade conflict over steel and aluminum and dairy, etc.). If you traveled back 15-20 years and told people at the time that there would be a situation where Canada would be poor in vaccine supply while the US was drowning in it, people would be a bit shocked. During the Clinton/Chretien era this kind of lack of cooperation would be unheard of, continental integration was the agenda of the day. Some of this is now alleviating with Biden at the helm, but it's still not a good situation. We just "borrowed" 1.5M doses of AstraZeneca from the US that they weren't using, but that's really a drop in the bucket. So yeah, it's not just EU vs UK, it's a whole situation, the breakdown of the neo-liberal concensus. It's not clear what replaces it.

juanani 6y ago
>China imprisoning our citizens as proxy conflict with the US Was that retaliatory for Canada imprisoning a Chinese citizen in the name of US sanctions against Iran? I am curious which came first since I haven't followed it closely.(no justifying, just wondering why this is the example you brought up)
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  Yes, retaliation for honoring our extradition treaty with the US, in a conflict initiated by the Trump admin.
pseudo0 6y ago
Remember the softwood lumber dispute (billions of dollars and years of legal wrangling) or the flak Chretien caught from the US for keeping Canada out of Iraq? I think you're looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses.

maxerickson 6y ago

The US did make big purchase commitments for the mRNA and J&J vaccines before EU though, months before, which he just dances past.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

The UK made a deal so that the vaccine they developed could be manufactured and used abroad and insisted that it should be sold at cost (which means that the vaccine is very cheap). How is that "screwing" the EU? In the meantime the EU has worked hard to try to destroy AZ vaccine's reputation...

neilsense 6y ago
It's not, but a Twitter thread is apparently how we judge truth now. If France's vaccine had worked and AZ failed, the tables would have been turned. This also completely ignores that the Oxford/AZ vaccine is what is driving vaccinations around the world right now for ~$3 a pop. Somehow UK is both the devil and an angel in this scenario.

neilsense 6y ago

Twitter threads aren't truth. And Dave Keating has his blue-tinted spectacles with this version of the 'truth'.

mariusor 6y ago
To which claim of his exactly are you objecting to? Did US export vaccine doses to its neighbours or anyone else? Did UK export vaccine doses to the EU?
- kcartlidge 6y ago
  > Did UK export vaccine doses to the EU? I'm not commenting on Dave as I've no idea what he said/wrote, I'm replying to the above as it's a commonly held point that the EU shipped does to the UK and the UK has not reciprocated. And this is very much not true. The EU does not make any vaccine, and so by definition has not shipped any doses to the UK. A private company (AZ) has contracts that include manufacturing in the EU and shipping into the UK. This has nothing to do with the EU as an entity at all; it is simple private trade. If the EU couldn't come up with an enforcable private contract going the other way, that's on them. And even if AZ are somehow in the wrong on the EU contract, it's still private contracts between them and the EU and has nothing to do with the UK government, so why should it be 'obliged' to send any back? After all, the UK (as an entity) also doesn't produce vaccines and so has none to send in any event.