3 ms·

> Regarding the "no company would do this type of deal again": good! We don't need companies that get free expansion and IP with the promises of delivery, just

> Regarding the "no company would do this type of deal again": good! We don't need companies that get free expansion and IP with the promises of delivery, just to find out they won't deliver. We don’t need companies that save lives? Regardless of who got the AZ vaccine first, millions did get it and for some it saved their lives. Anger about a contract dispute seems disproportionate reason to wish AstraZeneca didn’t even exist.

libertine 5y ago
AstraZeneca wasn't the only one interested in this IP. They were the ones who got chosen to use it - in fact the first choice was Merck. Would they have done a better job, and saved many more millions, I guess we will never know - it's pretty hard to do a worst job then AZ though. Hell, just look at how J&J is cruising through their problems, and compare. I never said I wish AZ didn't exist, I said it's obvious the outcome would be a lawsuit.
- aljungberg 5y ago
  Creating these vaccines is hard as we see from Merck failing to make any at all and J&J still not having gotten significant deliveries out. Let’s recognise that AstraZeneca are in a minority succeeding at all. When this is all over they may have contributed billions of doses. We need more companies like that, not fewer.
  - libertine 5y ago
    Well I'm going beyond the point of creating/manufacturing vaccines. The controversy with AstraZeneca ranged from: - botched trials (which anecdotally they doubled down with the submission to the FDA months later, with a different type of mistake, but still, wrong data); - the CEO dropping out of a call with the EU commission blaming them that they should have signed the contract months earlier (when we discovered weeks later the UK actually signed the contract after the EU) and vanishing from the face of the earth; - to warn the EU they would only receive 30% of a order with few weeks notice (which ended up being less the 30%, after saying it would be 40% after all); - to disregard the thrombocytopenia apparently not even looking at the data (until this day I don't think they even acknowledged that symptom - unlike J&J); - avoiding the submission of plants in EU; - the constant shifting blame to other entities outside of the EU contract; - and probably many more shit I don't even recall, because it was a lot of crap; I think this might be too much, and it goes beyond the flushing 60 million vaccines down the toilet due to quality control. Like I said before, production problems were expected, but the EU didn't commit €750 million, with €336 million upfront for a circus show. You have companies that failed at the vaccine development, or that are behind, yet they're still useful. Some are helping with the production of other vaccines (like Sanofi). So there are plenty of cases of redemption and "best reasonable efforts", AZ is just a cluster fuck.

libertine 5y ago

AstraZeneca wasn't the only one interested in this IP. They were the ones who got chosen to use it - in fact the first choice was Merck. Would they have done a better job, and saved many more millions, I guess we will never know - it's pretty hard to do a worst job then AZ though. Hell, just look at how J&J is cruising through their problems, and compare. I never said I wish AZ didn't exist, I said it's obvious the outcome would be a lawsuit.

aljungberg 5y ago
Creating these vaccines is hard as we see from Merck failing to make any at all and J&J still not having gotten significant deliveries out. Let’s recognise that AstraZeneca are in a minority succeeding at all. When this is all over they may have contributed billions of doses. We need more companies like that, not fewer.
- libertine 5y ago
  Well I'm going beyond the point of creating/manufacturing vaccines. The controversy with AstraZeneca ranged from: - botched trials (which anecdotally they doubled down with the submission to the FDA months later, with a different type of mistake, but still, wrong data); - the CEO dropping out of a call with the EU commission blaming them that they should have signed the contract months earlier (when we discovered weeks later the UK actually signed the contract after the EU) and vanishing from the face of the earth; - to warn the EU they would only receive 30% of a order with few weeks notice (which ended up being less the 30%, after saying it would be 40% after all); - to disregard the thrombocytopenia apparently not even looking at the data (until this day I don't think they even acknowledged that symptom - unlike J&J); - avoiding the submission of plants in EU; - the constant shifting blame to other entities outside of the EU contract; - and probably many more shit I don't even recall, because it was a lot of crap; I think this might be too much, and it goes beyond the flushing 60 million vaccines down the toilet due to quality control. Like I said before, production problems were expected, but the EU didn't commit €750 million, with €336 million upfront for a circus show. You have companies that failed at the vaccine development, or that are behind, yet they're still useful. Some are helping with the production of other vaccines (like Sanofi). So there are plenty of cases of redemption and "best reasonable efforts", AZ is just a cluster fuck.