5 ms·

The EU did sign contracts. Unfortunately AstraZeneca is not going to be able to fulfill the contract, only delivering 30m out of 80m doses in Q1, with an even b

The EU did sign contracts. Unfortunately AstraZeneca is not going to be able to fulfill the contract, only delivering 30m out of 80m doses in Q1, with an even bigger shortfall expected for Q2. https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897665864830978 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897665864830978

legulere 6y ago
AstraZeneca also exported EU stockpiles to the UK leading to this shortfall.
- vinay427 6y ago
  The EU also hadn't approved the vaccine when those stockpiles were exported, and it was to compensate for UK domestic production shortfalls which the EU suffered from a few months later due in large part to the Commission delaying the contract. The UK got precedence because they were first in line and the EU couldn't yet use the vaccines.
  - legulere 6y ago
    Those were stockpiled for the EU. Meanwhile also the US has a stockpile of AstraZeneca vaccines, but none were exported.
- youngtaff 6y ago
  Apparently not many doses have been exported from Halix in NL, and they have a stockpile of doses
  - markus92 6y ago
    A ton got exported in early January, although precise numbers don't seem to be public.
    - youngtaff 6y ago
      Wonder where they went… Based on this report (which is somewhat anecdotal), the EU exported ~10m vaccine doses to the UK - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-18/europe-with-millions-of-doses-unused-is-divided-on-export-ban https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-18/europe-wi... The majority of these doses will be Pfizer, as there's no production in the UK and the UK's MHRA reported ~10m people had a first Pfizer dose by end of Feb Everyone I know (me included) is currently being given AZ vaccine and I presume the Pfizer is being retained for second shots for those who've already had it. Of course there's politics in play, as well as the challenges of scaling up vaccine production but IMV biggest thing Britain could do is give enough Ireland enough doses to speedup the vaccination of their population
hawk_ 6y ago
what's the point of a contract that's not enforceable? if EU has to resort to export bans after the fact, sounds like someone somewhere didn't do basic due diligence. companies aren't going to deliver just out of the goodness of their hearts.
- brmgb 6y ago
  > what's the point of a contract that's not enforceable? That's why the USA didn't bother ordering rapidely. They knew they could use the defense act and executive orders to block exports and they did as soon as they could. Even Canada is buying vaccines in Belgium. The UK was wise. They prevented Oxford associating with Merks and forced them to partner with AstraZeneca. That's the key take away from the pfizer debacle and the Nordstream interferences. Europe needs to strike American companies hard and push them out of the European market as fast as possible. The USA is not our ally.
  - logotype 6y ago
    That’s absurd. On the contrary, we should work closer with our ally USA, increase trade and more cooperation. We should completely decouple from China and stop trade from there, and restart domestic manufacturing.
    - turbinerneiter 6y ago
      To do that, we would need to trust the USA to have our shared best interest in mind. I don't have that. The EU is notoriously bad in protecting their self-interest, the US is notoriously good at that. I want to the EU to be a close ally to the US, but it is not the EU who is the problem here.
    - astrange 6y ago
      Doesn't Germany have a lot of manufacturing? I thought it was what they were known for. China's final assembly companies are not the only kind of manufacturing and not the most worthwhile part of it, although Shenzhen is certainly good at electronics.
_Microft 6y ago
Thanks for linking to this thread, it was insightful.
bengale 6y ago
But since they were so late in getting that contract signed AZ were only able to promise a best effort at delivery.
- bidatzi 6y ago
  UK contract is also on a “best effort” basis.
- gebruikersnaam 6y ago
  They signed 1 dey before the UK, which also got a 'best effort' contract.
  - readittwice 6y ago
    Again: No, the UK had a binding contract with AZ since May already. "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." Quote is from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
    - gebruikersnaam 6y ago
      Again: Soriot is lying. This link says the UK signed in june : https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-innovation-2021-1-astrazeneca-boss-says-faster-uk-vaccines-due-to-contract-terms/ https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-inno... Except it didn't, the UK signed in august. The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines, except Italy blocked an export to Australia a couple of weeks ago.
      - readittwice 6y ago
        No, I've already posted the article that states that the UK signed the contract with AZ in May. There are also other news articles from May 2020 (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/18/coronavirus-astrazeneca-aims-to-distribute-vaccine-in-uk-by-september.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/18/coronavirus-astrazeneca-aims...) that prove that the UK already ordered back then. That's why it was considered "news" when it was reported that one particular contract was signed by the UK one day after the EU. But that's not the full story, since the UK had binding contracts with AZ well before that. "The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines, except Italy blocked an export to Australia a couple of weeks ago." I haven't seen that claim in the article you linked.

legulere 6y ago

AstraZeneca also exported EU stockpiles to the UK leading to this shortfall.

vinay427 6y ago
The EU also hadn't approved the vaccine when those stockpiles were exported, and it was to compensate for UK domestic production shortfalls which the EU suffered from a few months later due in large part to the Commission delaying the contract. The UK got precedence because they were first in line and the EU couldn't yet use the vaccines.
- legulere 6y ago
  Those were stockpiled for the EU. Meanwhile also the US has a stockpile of AstraZeneca vaccines, but none were exported.
youngtaff 6y ago
Apparently not many doses have been exported from Halix in NL, and they have a stockpile of doses
- markus92 6y ago
  A ton got exported in early January, although precise numbers don't seem to be public.
  - youngtaff 6y ago
    Wonder where they went… Based on this report (which is somewhat anecdotal), the EU exported ~10m vaccine doses to the UK - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-18/europe-with-millions-of-doses-unused-is-divided-on-export-ban https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-18/europe-wi... The majority of these doses will be Pfizer, as there's no production in the UK and the UK's MHRA reported ~10m people had a first Pfizer dose by end of Feb Everyone I know (me included) is currently being given AZ vaccine and I presume the Pfizer is being retained for second shots for those who've already had it. Of course there's politics in play, as well as the challenges of scaling up vaccine production but IMV biggest thing Britain could do is give enough Ireland enough doses to speedup the vaccination of their population

hawk_ 6y ago

what's the point of a contract that's not enforceable? if EU has to resort to export bans after the fact, sounds like someone somewhere didn't do basic due diligence. companies aren't going to deliver just out of the goodness of their hearts.

brmgb 6y ago
> what's the point of a contract that's not enforceable? That's why the USA didn't bother ordering rapidely. They knew they could use the defense act and executive orders to block exports and they did as soon as they could. Even Canada is buying vaccines in Belgium. The UK was wise. They prevented Oxford associating with Merks and forced them to partner with AstraZeneca. That's the key take away from the pfizer debacle and the Nordstream interferences. Europe needs to strike American companies hard and push them out of the European market as fast as possible. The USA is not our ally.
- logotype 6y ago
  That’s absurd. On the contrary, we should work closer with our ally USA, increase trade and more cooperation. We should completely decouple from China and stop trade from there, and restart domestic manufacturing.
  - turbinerneiter 6y ago
    To do that, we would need to trust the USA to have our shared best interest in mind. I don't have that. The EU is notoriously bad in protecting their self-interest, the US is notoriously good at that. I want to the EU to be a close ally to the US, but it is not the EU who is the problem here.
  - astrange 6y ago
    Doesn't Germany have a lot of manufacturing? I thought it was what they were known for. China's final assembly companies are not the only kind of manufacturing and not the most worthwhile part of it, although Shenzhen is certainly good at electronics.

_Microft 6y ago

Thanks for linking to this thread, it was insightful.

bengale 6y ago

But since they were so late in getting that contract signed AZ were only able to promise a best effort at delivery.

bidatzi 6y ago
UK contract is also on a “best effort” basis.
gebruikersnaam 6y ago
They signed 1 dey before the UK, which also got a 'best effort' contract.
- readittwice 6y ago
  Again: No, the UK had a binding contract with AZ since May already. "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." Quote is from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
  - gebruikersnaam 6y ago
    Again: Soriot is lying. This link says the UK signed in june : https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-innovation-2021-1-astrazeneca-boss-says-faster-uk-vaccines-due-to-contract-terms/ https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-inno... Except it didn't, the UK signed in august. The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines, except Italy blocked an export to Australia a couple of weeks ago.
    - readittwice 6y ago
      No, I've already posted the article that states that the UK signed the contract with AZ in May. There are also other news articles from May 2020 (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/18/coronavirus-astrazeneca-aims-to-distribute-vaccine-in-uk-by-september.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/18/coronavirus-astrazeneca-aims...) that prove that the UK already ordered back then. That's why it was considered "news" when it was reported that one particular contract was signed by the UK one day after the EU. But that's not the full story, since the UK had binding contracts with AZ well before that. "The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines, except Italy blocked an export to Australia a couple of weeks ago." I haven't seen that claim in the article you linked.