I don't believe you are a liar or a hypocrite. A little sad that you don't accord me the same courtesy.
I recall how angry you got with someone that refused to answer your questions a while back. Now, I am sure that you have not deliberately avoided answering various questions I have put.
So I am going to make this nice and simple. These are the questions that you have not answered, together with a few supplemental questions that would have followed the answers.
I am sure that you will at some stage want to give long, windy answers to various points. But humour me. Just answer the questions with a simple yes/no in your next post. And then feel free to answer your own posts in more detail after that.
1. Do you believe that there has been a shortfall in production/supply in Europe of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines? Yes/no 2. Do you find it incongruous that there are precise numbers on shortfalls of AZ, and nothing on Pfizer/Moderna? Yes/no 3. Do you find it strange that the EU can bang on about the UK being ahead of the EU by massive amounts, yet ignore the fact that the US (the makers of the other vaccines) is also ahead by some 300%? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is in the nature of politicians, when they have made a massive error, to try and blame someone else? Yes/no 5. A non-member of the EU (the UK) has, deliberately or otherwise, gained a clear advantage. And Germany has clearly done so deliberately, and in clear breach of the rules of the club it belongs to. Do you think that it is right that the EU Commission has found no problem with this, while continuing to accuse the UK without proof? Yes/no 6. The EU is about 150 million vaccines behind the UK. If we use that figure, and also say that they are 60 million AZ vaccines short, do you believe that the other 90 million shortfall is due either to 1 above, and/or EU incompetence? Yes/no 7. Countries such as Hungary and Malta have vaccinated large numbers via deals with Russia/Israel, etc. Given that some 150 million people in the EU appear to have an increased risk of dying, do you think the EU is right to keep pointing fingers at AZ, rather than getting vaccines that are freely available elsewhere? Yes/no 8. It has been widely reported that 40-50% of AZ vaccine is going unused in EU countries. Do you believe that EU leaders statements have contributed to this? Yes/no 9. Do you believe that Brexit has contributed to our improved position in relation to vaccines? Yes/no 10. Do you believe that the EU's apparent failure to safeguard its members adequately in relation to vaccines means that the EU is less likely to survive in the medium term than 6 months ago? Yes/no
I look forward to your 1 word responses.
PS-well done in the Main last night.
I have had enough of the vaccine row. Although I did watch "Dateline London" on the weekend which clarified the position quite well.
I accept that the EU have screwed up their vaccine roll out.
I also accept that the UK havent.
Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally.
I also accept that there have been unfortunate comments made by politicians on both sides, although the EU comments receive more publicity on this side of the channel.
Some aspects are very clear, others arent.
The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying.
The UK did not benefit from Brexit in any way as we were still members of the EU when we made our vaccine arrangements, and any other EU member could have made similar arrangements.
Some have argued that we should take precedence in the case of AZ supplies, because we funded them, yet the EU also invested something like 330 million euros in AZ, which can only be seen as a complete waste of money.
AZ have blamed production delays for the EU shortage of supplies. Yet these production delays have affected the EU supply dramatically, and left the UK supply unaffected. Thats a very tough one to explain.
Matt Hancock came out and said "thats contract law", before going on to explain that the UK has an exclusive contract with AZ.
Now I thought I knew the meaning of "exclusive", but clearly not.
If the UK has an exclusive contract with AZ for the vaccine, how could they also sign a contract with the EU?
Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?
The Indian Government have suspended exports of the vaccine leaving the UK 5 million doses short of the AZ vaccine. Exclusivity? This is in complete contradiction to what Boris had to say about it. He maintained that the Indian Government had not interfered. So the EU have been lambasted for merely threatening to do something that the Indian Government has actually done. Yet the Indians are facing no repercussions, and have ruled that there will be no exports until further notice.
The Americans have blocked exports that will affect output in the Pfizer factory in Belgium, that supplies the UK, and EU. Yet there has been no criticism of the Americans. I wonder why?
The EU just seem to want fairness.
According to "Dateline London", the EU have exported 77 million doses of the vaccine to other countries, 30 million of these to the UK. The UK have exported none to the EU.
The American export restrictions will also affect The Serum Institute in India, the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world, and suppliers of the AZ vaccine. They will supply the UK at some point in the future, but not on schedule.
Moderna Speeds Up Two Delivery Dates for 200M COVID-19 ... www.newsmax.com/us/moderna-pfizer-vaccine-covid/... Moderna will move up delivery for two rounds of 100 million COVID-19 vaccine doses by months, the company announced Tuesday. Doses originally scheduled to be delivered at the end of June now are scheduled for the end of May, per the Washington Examiner.
Pfizer Will Deliver Vaccines Ahead Of Schedule - Simplemost www.simplemost.com/pfizer-will-deliver-vaccines... 27/01/2021 · Pfizer is able to accelerate the delivery of doses because of a change in the vaccine’s label that allows providers to extract an additional dose from each vial (so each vial will provide six
I don't believe you are a liar or a hypocrite. A little sad that you don't accord me the same courtesy.
I recall how angry you got with someone that refused to answer your questions a while back. Now, I am sure that you have not deliberately avoided answering various questions I have put.
So I am going to make this nice and simple. These are the questions that you have not answered, together with a few supplemental questions that would have followed the answers.
I am sure that you will at some stage want to give long, windy answers to various points. But humour me. Just answer the questions with a simple yes/no in your next post. And then feel free to answer your own posts in more detail after that.
1. Do you believe that there has been a shortfall in production/supply in Europe of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines? Yes/no 2. Do you find it incongruous that there are precise numbers on shortfalls of AZ, and nothing on Pfizer/Moderna? Yes/no 3. Do you find it strange that the EU can bang on about the UK being ahead of the EU by massive amounts, yet ignore the fact that the US (the makers of the other vaccines) is also ahead by some 300%? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is in the nature of politicians, when they have made a massive error, to try and blame someone else? Yes/no 5. A non-member of the EU (the UK) has, deliberately or otherwise, gained a clear advantage. And Germany has clearly done so deliberately, and in clear breach of the rules of the club it belongs to. Do you think that it is right that the EU Commission has found no problem with this, while continuing to accuse the UK without proof? Yes/no 6. The EU is about 150 million vaccines behind the UK. If we use that figure, and also say that they are 60 million AZ vaccines short, do you believe that the other 90 million shortfall is due either to 1 above, and/or EU incompetence? Yes/no 7. Countries such as Hungary and Malta have vaccinated large numbers via deals with Russia/Israel, etc. Given that some 150 million people in the EU appear to have an increased risk of dying, do you think the EU is right to keep pointing fingers at AZ, rather than getting vaccines that are freely available elsewhere? Yes/no 8. It has been widely reported that 40-50% of AZ vaccine is going unused in EU countries. Do you believe that EU leaders statements have contributed to this? Yes/no 9. Do you believe that Brexit has contributed to our improved position in relation to vaccines? Yes/no 10. Do you believe that the EU's apparent failure to safeguard its members adequately in relation to vaccines means that the EU is less likely to survive in the medium term than 6 months ago? Yes/no
I look forward to your 1 word responses.
PS-well done in the Main last night.
I have had enough of the vaccine row. Although I did watch "Dateline London" on the weekend which clarified the position quite well.
I accept that the EU have screwed up their vaccine roll out.
I also accept that the UK havent.
Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally.
I also accept that there have been unfortunate comments made by politicians on both sides, although the EU comments receive more publicity on this side of the channel.
Some aspects are very clear, others arent.
The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying.
The UK did not benefit from Brexit in any way as we were still members of the EU when we made our vaccine arrangements, and any other EU member could have made similar arrangements.
Some have argued that we should take precedence in the case of AZ supplies, because we funded them, yet the EU also invested something like 330 million euros in AZ, which can only be seen as a complete waste of money.
AZ have blamed production delays for the EU shortage of supplies. Yet these production delays have affected the EU supply dramatically, and left the UK supply unaffected. Thats a very tough one to explain.
Matt Hancock came out and said "thats contract law", before going on to explain that the UK has an exclusive contract with AZ.
Now I thought I knew the meaning of "exclusive", but clearly not.
If the UK has an exclusive contract with AZ for the vaccine, how could they also sign a contract with the EU?
Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?
The Indian Government have suspended exports of the vaccine leaving the UK 5 million doses short of the AZ vaccine. Exclusivity? This is in complete contradiction to what Boris had to say about it. He maintained that the Indian Government had not interfered. So the EU have been lambasted for merely threatening to do something that the Indian Government has actually done. Yet the Indians are facing no repercussions, and have ruled that there will be no exports until further notice.
The EU just seem to want fairness.
According to "Dateline London", the EU have exported 77 million doses of the vaccine to other countries, 30 million of these to the UK. The UK have exported none to the EU.
The American export restrictions will also affect The Serum Institute in India, the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world, and suppliers of the AZ vaccine. They will supply the UK at some point in the future, but not on schedule.
Moderna Speeds Up Two Delivery Dates for 200M COVID-19 ... www.newsmax.com/us/moderna-pfizer-vaccine-covid/... Moderna will move up delivery for two rounds of 100 million COVID-19 vaccine doses by months, the company announced Tuesday. Doses originally scheduled to be delivered at the end of June now are scheduled for the end of May, per the Washington Examiner.
Pfizer Will Deliver Vaccines Ahead Of Schedule - Simplemost www.simplemost.com/pfizer-will-deliver-vaccines... 27/01/2021 · Pfizer is able to accelerate the delivery of doses because of a change in the vaccine’s label that allows providers to extract an additional dose from each vial (so each vial will provide six
You make some interesting points in your last post. Thought it might help if i clarify some of these:-
1. "Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally."
Dumb luck may well be part of it. But not all of it. The vaccine roll-out has been as good as Track & Trace was bad. Many people believed that we could act quicker and more decisively if we were not tied to the juggernaut that is the EU. And it is clear that some of the time, that is true. And vaccine roll-out is looking very important right now. So much so that, as @HANSON pointed out, the EU is fighting for its very survival right now.
2. "The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying."
It is not confusing once you understand the way Big Pharma works.
The fixed costs are massive. The R&D, the clinical trials, the regulatory hoops. All at a massive risk. So (for example) many companies spent a fortune on SARS vaccines/treatments, and lost a fortune. A lot of these costs have been expended before anyone buys them.
So-the first large country to give regulatory approval and place a large order is an absolute godsend to AZ or Pfizer. And, because no-one knows how many more orders there will be, more of the initial costs are passed to the first buyer (The UK for AZ). That is why the price is higher. And why the UK gets a level of priority, above "best endeavours". Which the EU know fine well. Because it happens all the time.
3. "Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?"
The EU's investment was primarily for vaccines. And only negotiated after the massive risks associated with the UK investment had passed.
I am struggling to believe that the EU's advisers were not able to realise that there was going to be an element of being 2nd in the queue. I'm quite willing to believe that they were not aware how far behind they would be, either with the US or the UK. But they knew they would be behind.
4. "The Americans have blocked exports that will affect output in the Pfizer factory in Belgium, that supplies the UK, and EU. Yet there has been no criticism of the Americans. I wonder why?"
A good point. Particularly on the EU side. Because they have, unlike the UK, sought the majority of their vaccines from Pfizer. But they are too busy blaming the UK. Because they are scared as to what this may mean for the future of the EU.
I have had enough of the vaccine row. Although I did watch "Dateline London" on the weekend which clarified the position quite well.
I accept that the EU have screwed up their vaccine roll out.
I also accept that the UK havent.
Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally.
I also accept that there have been unfortunate comments made by politicians on both sides, although the EU comments receive more publicity on this side of the channel.
Some aspects are very clear, others arent.
The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying.
The UK did not benefit from Brexit in any way as we were still members of the EU when we made our vaccine arrangements, and any other EU member could have made similar arrangements.
Some have argued that we should take precedence in the case of AZ supplies, because we funded them, yet the EU also invested something like 330 million euros in AZ, which can only be seen as a complete waste of money.
AZ have blamed production delays for the EU shortage of supplies. Yet these production delays have affected the EU supply dramatically, and left the UK supply unaffected. Thats a very tough one to explain.
Matt Hancock came out and said "thats contract law", before going on to explain that the UK has an exclusive contract with AZ.
Now I thought I knew the meaning of "exclusive", but clearly not.
If the UK has an exclusive contract with AZ for the vaccine, how could they also sign a contract with the EU?
Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?
The Indian Government have suspended exports of the vaccine leaving the UK 5 million doses short of the AZ vaccine. Exclusivity? This is in complete contradiction to what Boris had to say about it. He maintained that the Indian Government had not interfered. So the EU have been lambasted for merely threatening to do something that the Indian Government has actually done. Yet the Indians are facing no repercussions, and have ruled that there will be no exports until further notice.
The EU just seem to want fairness.
According to "Dateline London", the EU have exported 77 million doses of the vaccine to other countries, 30 million of these to the UK. The UK have exported none to the EU.
The American export restrictions will also affect The Serum Institute in India, the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world, and suppliers of the AZ vaccine. They will supply the UK at some point in the future, but not on schedule.
You make some interesting points in your last post. Thought it might help if i clarify some of these:-
1. "Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally."
Dumb luck may well be part of it. But not all of it. The vaccine roll-out has been as good as Track & Trace was bad. Many people believed that we could act quicker and more decisively if we were not tied to the juggernaut that is the EU. And it is clear that some of the time, that is true. And vaccine roll-out is looking very important right now. So much so that, as @HANSON pointed out, the EU is fighting for its very survival right now.
I wouldnt know about that. I was merely making the point that such a well organised roll out would seem to be the exception rather than the rule, if you take into account their track record. I have no real criticism of the UK vaccine roll out. The American roll out has also been good. Their target was 100 million vaccinations in Bidens first 100 days. They accomplished it in 58, and plan to do another 100 million with the 100 days.
2. "The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying."
It is not confusing once you understand the way Big Pharma works.
The fixed costs are massive. The R&D, the clinical trials, the regulatory hoops. All at a massive risk. So (for example) many companies spent a fortune on SARS vaccines/treatments, and lost a fortune. A lot of these costs have been expended before anyone buys them.
I understand that. Both the EU, and UK Government invested money upfront. My point is that if they are supplying the vaccine at cost, you would assume that the cost would be the same to the UK and EU. The EU is paying less than 60% of the cost to the UK. This mounts up over hundreds of millions of doses. What makes this more peculiar is that Matt Hancock was making out that the UK has a preferential deal with AZ.
So-the first large country to give regulatory approval and place a large order is an absolute godsend to AZ or Pfizer. And, because no-one knows how many more orders there will be, more of the initial costs are passed to the first buyer (The UK for AZ). That is why the price is higher. And why the UK gets a level of priority, above "best endeavours". Which the EU know fine well. Because it happens all the time.
This just sounds like a cunning plan. Be first to order. Invest hundreds of millions upfront. And pay around 40% more per dose, on an order of 100 million.
3. "Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?"
The EU's investment was primarily for vaccines. And only negotiated after the massive risks associated with the UK investment had passed.
I am struggling to believe that the EU's advisers were not able to realise that there was going to be an element of being 2nd in the queue. I'm quite willing to believe that they were not aware how far behind they would be, either with the US or the UK. But they knew they would be behind.
AZ signed a contract with the EU to supply 90 million doses by the end of March, and fell short by about 60 million. They were obviously aware of their obligation to the UK, when they signed this contract. If the EU demands were unrealistic, they shouldnt have signed the contract.
4. "The Americans have blocked exports that will affect output in the Pfizer factory in Belgium, that supplies the UK, and EU. Yet there has been no criticism of the Americans. I wonder why?"
A good point. Particularly on the EU side. Because they have, unlike the UK, sought the majority of their vaccines from Pfizer. But they are too busy blaming the UK. Because they are scared as to what this may mean for the future of the EU.
The EU have ordered 400 million doses of AZ, compared to 100 million for the UK. The EU have clearly commented on this, but the UK think all their comments are directed at us.
I think that the world wide vaccine roll out can only be successful if we all work together, and not greedily monopolise the supply. We will not be travelling abroad until the level of vaccinations are increased in the popular holiday destinations.
US threatens to impose tariffs of up to 25 PER CENT on UK exports of clothes, make-up and video game consoles in row over Britain's new 'unreasonable' and 'discriminatory' tech firm tax
The US is threatening to impose tariffs of up to 25 per cent on some UK exports as it retaliates over Britain's new 'unreasonable' and 'discriminatory' tax on big tech firms.
France and Germany will no longer extradite criminal suspects to Britain because of Brexit, along with eight other European countries
Ten countries, including Germany and France, will no longer extradite their nationals to the UK after Brexit ended the country's participation in the European Arrest Warrants scheme.
France and Germany will no longer extradite criminal suspects to Britain because of Brexit, along with eight other European countries
Ten countries, including Germany and France, will no longer extradite their nationals to the UK after Brexit ended the country's participation in the European Arrest Warrants scheme.
So I assume that works both ways when the said countries want criminal suspects extradited back to them ? What some people don't seem to understand about Brexit is the basic principle of 'Newtons Third Law' albeit not literally, "Every action has an equal or opposite reaction".
1. "Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally."
Dumb luck may well be part of it. But not all of it. The vaccine roll-out has been as good as Track & Trace was bad. Many people believed that we could act quicker and more decisively if we were not tied to the juggernaut that is the EU. And it is clear that some of the time, that is true. And vaccine roll-out is looking very important right now. So much so that, as @HANSON pointed out, the EU is fighting for its very survival right now.
I wouldnt know about that. I was merely making the point that such a well organised roll out would seem to be the exception rather than the rule, if you take into account their track record. I have no real criticism of the UK vaccine roll out. The American roll out has also been good. Their target was 100 million vaccinations in Bidens first 100 days. They accomplished it in 58, and plan to do another 100 million with the 100 days.
2. "The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying."
It is not confusing once you understand the way Big Pharma works.
The fixed costs are massive. The R&D, the clinical trials, the regulatory hoops. All at a massive risk. So (for example) many companies spent a fortune on SARS vaccines/treatments, and lost a fortune. A lot of these costs have been expended before anyone buys them.
I understand that. Both the EU, and UK Government invested money upfront. My point is that if they are supplying the vaccine at cost, you would assume that the cost would be the same to the UK and EU. The EU is paying less than 60% of the cost to the UK. This mounts up over hundreds of millions of doses. What makes this more peculiar is that Matt Hancock was making out that the UK has a preferential deal with AZ.
So-the first large country to give regulatory approval and place a large order is an absolute godsend to AZ or Pfizer. And, because no-one knows how many more orders there will be, more of the initial costs are passed to the first buyer (The UK for AZ). That is why the price is higher. And why the UK gets a level of priority, above "best endeavours". Which the EU know fine well. Because it happens all the time.
This just sounds like a cunning plan. Be first to order. Invest hundreds of millions upfront. And pay around 40% more per dose, on an order of 100 million.
3. "Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?"
The EU's investment was primarily for vaccines. And only negotiated after the massive risks associated with the UK investment had passed.
I am struggling to believe that the EU's advisers were not able to realise that there was going to be an element of being 2nd in the queue. I'm quite willing to believe that they were not aware how far behind they would be, either with the US or the UK. But they knew they would be behind.
AZ signed a contract with the EU to supply 90 million doses by the end of March, and fell short by about 60 million. They were obviously aware of their obligation to the UK, when they signed this contract. If the EU demands were unrealistic, they shouldnt have signed the contract.
4. "The Americans have blocked exports that will affect output in the Pfizer factory in Belgium, that supplies the UK, and EU. Yet there has been no criticism of the Americans. I wonder why?"
A good point. Particularly on the EU side. Because they have, unlike the UK, sought the majority of their vaccines from Pfizer. But they are too busy blaming the UK. Because they are scared as to what this may mean for the future of the EU.
The EU have ordered 400 million doses of AZ, compared to 100 million for the UK. The EU have clearly commented on this, but the UK think all their comments are directed at us.
I think that the world wide vaccine roll out can only be successful if we all work together, and not greedily monopolise the supply. We will not be travelling abroad until the level of vaccinations are increased in the popular holiday destinations.
1. Completely agree 2. You continue to ignore the relevance of the timings. Why do you think the UK is perfectly happy to pay more? The only possible answers are:- (1) We have a better deal; or (2) We are really, really stupid. I think it is (1), you think (2). Funny how the EU want the same benefits, but ignore the fact that their "cost" is less than ours. Don't see them offering to equal the price. 3. AZ's actions are not perfect. But the EU should not be blaming the UK for AZ's actions, nor should they be carrying out modern-day piracy. This will hurt the EU's members going forward-an example is today's decision by GSK to have their vaccine made in the UK, rather than the EU (as had been previously planned). The EU is all about what is best for the EU Commission-they need to focus on their members. 4. 400 million AZ vaccines. And 1.6 billion vaccines ordered from the USA. And you (like the EU) only want to talk about the 20%. Ignoring the 80%. The EU looks terrible in all this.
There's going to be delays in travelling abroad. But fewer deaths in the UK as a result of this, and the ability to open our economy earlier.
i believe that AZ has got contracts with many countries and have made around 2 billion doses worldwide so far and i would presume those contracts would not guarantee but have the words best efforts as the EU contract does .
i also believe AZ have been fair to share there finished doses out fairly to all those that have contracts worldwide the UKs rollout has been excellent we get doses out to the UK population and it looks like we are racing ahead but we only have the UK to vaccinate where as the EU get doses delivered then have to share them out between 27 countries as that was the model they chose to follow ..
As has been said the UK took a risk early on but it was a risk worth taking and paid off.
I strongly believe if the EU instead of slating the AZ jab making threats to raid factories and take jabs and blockade any shipments from leaving the EU and ended up having millions of doses in storage because of the mistrust in it now .. just asked for some assistance nicely but they just could not bring themselves to do that can they ...
Also, by the way they have been acting if it was the other way round and the UK was struggling they would more than likely say you chose to go it alone now deal with it just my opinion .. anyway i hope the UK does the right thing and help as much as we can while keeping up with our own rollout ...
The EU citizens deserved better from there commission
i believe that AZ has got contracts with many countries and have made around 2 billion doses worldwide so far and i would presume those contracts would not guarantee but have the words best efforts as the EU contract does .
i also believe AZ have been fair to share there finished doses out fairly to all those that have contracts worldwide the UKs rollout has been excellent we get doses out to the UK population and it looks like we are racing ahead but we only have the UK to vaccinate where as the EU get doses delivered then have to share them out between 27 countries as that was the model they chose to follow ..
As has been said the UK took a risk early on but it was a risk worth taking and paid off.
I strongly believe if the EU instead of slating the AZ jab making threats to raid factories and take jabs and blockade any shipments from leaving the EU and ended up having millions of doses in storage because of the mistrust in it now .. just asked for some assistance nicely but they just could not bring themselves to do that can they ...
Also, by the way they have been acting if it was the other way round and the UK was struggling they would more than likely say you chose to go it alone now deal with it just my opinion .. anyway i hope the UK does the right thing and help as much as we can while keeping up with our own rollout ...
The EU citizens deserved better from there commission
Covid-19 vaccine exports and the UK
WHAT WAS CLAIMED The EU has exported 41.6 million vaccines so far, 10 million of which were to the UK.
OUR VERDICT This is how many vaccines manufacturers in EU member states have exported.
WHAT WAS CLAIMED The UK and US have exported no vaccines. OUR VERDICT This is probably true, although the US plans to. A firm based in the UK does export ingredients used in the production of the Pfizer vaccine.
A viral tweet claims that the EU has exported 41.6 million vaccines, mostly to the UK, while the US and UK have exported none. A screenshot of the tweet has also been spreading on Facebook.
This 41.6 million figure and the graph in the image come from Bloomberg. The outlet said these figures were correct as of 15 March and come from “an EU document seen by Bloomberg” which was shared with EU ambassadors.
The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said on 17 March that over the previous six weeks, 41 million doses had been exported to 33 countries.
This is how many vaccines have been exported from vaccine manufacturers in EU states, rather than by the EU as an organisation.
By comparison, it’s unclear how many Covid-19 vaccines have been exported from the UK to other countries.
Of the vaccines approved for use in the UK, only the AstraZeneca vaccine is made here. The UK government and AstraZeneca have repeatedly declined to say how many Covid-19 vaccines the UK has exported, but it’s likely zero. Some ingredients for the Pfizer vaccine are reportedly exported from the UK to Pfizer factories in EU member states.
As for the US, the White House said on 18 March that although not yet finalised, it was planning to send four million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine to Mexico and Canada.
Vaccine nationalism? The reason why so many more vaccines have left EU member states than the UK has been the source of much contention.
European Council President, Charles Michel, claimed that the United Kingdom and the United States had imposed an “outright ban on the export of vaccines or vaccine components produced on their territory.”
Responding to Mr Michel’s comments, Boris Johnson told the Commons the next day: “I...wish to correct the suggestion from the European Council President that the UK has blocked vaccine exports. Let me be clear: we have not blocked the export of a single covid-19 vaccine or vaccine components.”
On the same day, President Michel told POLITICO: “They said that they didn’t decide a ban in the U.K. We know, and I know because I am a politician, that there are different ways to impose a ban or to impose restrictions on vaccines and/or on medicines, because on medicines there is a clear ban.
“But the question is the following: how many doses did they export? This is a very simple question, and since yesterday I haven’t heard the answer to this very simple question.” But it does also seem to be the case that no vaccines manufactured in the UK have been exported.
France and Germany will no longer extradite criminal suspects to Britain because of Brexit, along with eight other European countries
Ten countries, including Germany and France, will no longer extradite their nationals to the UK after Brexit ended the country's participation in the European Arrest Warrants scheme.
So I assume that works both ways when the said countries want criminal suspects extradited back to them ? What some people don't seem to understand about Brexit is the basic principle of 'Newtons Third Law' albeit not literally, "Every action has an equal or opposite reaction".
That may be the case, but obviously this will have a bigger effect on us than them.
i believe that AZ has got contracts with many countries and have made around 2 billion doses worldwide so far and i would presume those contracts would not guarantee but have the words best efforts as the EU contract does .
Az has a contract with the Serum Institute in India to supply developing countries. India have suspended vaccine exports. I would dispute the figure you are quoting. I dont think 2 billion is anywhere near the correct figure. AZ is very cagey on divulging any figures. I found an article that says that the big three producers have committed themselves to produce 5.3 billion doses between them by the end of this year. So with 9 months to go, none of them will have produced anywhere near 2 billion doses so far. AZ are currently producing 2 million doses per week in the UK, all of it being used in the UK. I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. If we concentrate on the EU/UK contracts. That is a total of two contracts. They are fulfilling one. And abysmally failing on the other.
i also believe AZ have been fair to share there finished doses out fairly to all those that have contracts worldwide the UKs rollout has been excellent we get doses out to the UK population and it looks like we are racing ahead but we only have the UK to vaccinate where as the EU get doses delivered then have to share them out between 27 countries as that was the model they chose to follow ..
Why would you believe that when it blatantly isnt true. The EU contract has been subject to production delays, but the UK contract amazingly hasnt. The EU has ordered 400 million doses of AZ to be shared by the 27.
As has been said the UK took a risk early on but it was a risk worth taking and paid off.
Took a risk how? How did it pay off?
I strongly believe if the EU instead of slating the AZ jab making threats to raid factories and take jabs and blockade any shipments from leaving the EU and ended up having millions of doses in storage because of the mistrust in it now .. just asked for some assistance nicely but they just could not bring themselves to do that can they ...
At the outset all the EU wanted was for their contract to be honoured. Why is nobody calling out India. The EU merely made threats regarding the action they might take if AZ didnt honour their contract. India are hanging on to 5 million doses that are meant to be in the UK by now. How can production delays affect only the EU contract, and not affect the UKs one bit? I believe the threatened to block exports rather than an all out war. Why do you think that every time an idiotic politician in Europe makes a silly comment, we criticise the EU?
Also, by the way they have been acting if it was the other way round and the UK was struggling they would more than likely say you chose to go it alone now deal with it just my opinion .. anyway i hope the UK does the right thing and help as much as we can while keeping up with our own rollout ...
I am amazed by this bit. The EU are struggling because AZ has let them down. There is no doubt in my mind that if the situation was reversed there would be a huge outcry in the UK followed by similar threats. What do you think the EU should have done? AZ contracted to supply them with 90 million doses before the end of this month. They caused an outcry when they reduced this figure to 40 million. The figure was further reduced to 31 million. The EU dont want help, they just want their contract honoured. At the weekend the EU had exported 77 million doses 30 million of which were sent to the UK. So you could say the EU have supplied every dose of vaccine that has so far gone into anyones arm in the UK. The UK have exported none.
The EU citizens deserved better from there commission
1. "Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally."
Dumb luck may well be part of it. But not all of it. The vaccine roll-out has been as good as Track & Trace was bad. Many people believed that we could act quicker and more decisively if we were not tied to the juggernaut that is the EU. And it is clear that some of the time, that is true. And vaccine roll-out is looking very important right now. So much so that, as @HANSON pointed out, the EU is fighting for its very survival right now.
I wouldnt know about that. I was merely making the point that such a well organised roll out would seem to be the exception rather than the rule, if you take into account their track record. I have no real criticism of the UK vaccine roll out. The American roll out has also been good. Their target was 100 million vaccinations in Bidens first 100 days. They accomplished it in 58, and plan to do another 100 million with the 100 days.
2. "The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying."
It is not confusing once you understand the way Big Pharma works.
The fixed costs are massive. The R&D, the clinical trials, the regulatory hoops. All at a massive risk. So (for example) many companies spent a fortune on SARS vaccines/treatments, and lost a fortune. A lot of these costs have been expended before anyone buys them.
I understand that. Both the EU, and UK Government invested money upfront. My point is that if they are supplying the vaccine at cost, you would assume that the cost would be the same to the UK and EU. The EU is paying less than 60% of the cost to the UK. This mounts up over hundreds of millions of doses. What makes this more peculiar is that Matt Hancock was making out that the UK has a preferential deal with AZ.
So-the first large country to give regulatory approval and place a large order is an absolute godsend to AZ or Pfizer. And, because no-one knows how many more orders there will be, more of the initial costs are passed to the first buyer (The UK for AZ). That is why the price is higher. And why the UK gets a level of priority, above "best endeavours". Which the EU know fine well. Because it happens all the time.
This just sounds like a cunning plan. Be first to order. Invest hundreds of millions upfront. And pay around 40% more per dose, on an order of 100 million.
3. "Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?"
The EU's investment was primarily for vaccines. And only negotiated after the massive risks associated with the UK investment had passed.
I am struggling to believe that the EU's advisers were not able to realise that there was going to be an element of being 2nd in the queue. I'm quite willing to believe that they were not aware how far behind they would be, either with the US or the UK. But they knew they would be behind.
AZ signed a contract with the EU to supply 90 million doses by the end of March, and fell short by about 60 million. They were obviously aware of their obligation to the UK, when they signed this contract. If the EU demands were unrealistic, they shouldnt have signed the contract.
4. "The Americans have blocked exports that will affect output in the Pfizer factory in Belgium, that supplies the UK, and EU. Yet there has been no criticism of the Americans. I wonder why?"
A good point. Particularly on the EU side. Because they have, unlike the UK, sought the majority of their vaccines from Pfizer. But they are too busy blaming the UK. Because they are scared as to what this may mean for the future of the EU.
The EU have ordered 400 million doses of AZ, compared to 100 million for the UK. The EU have clearly commented on this, but the UK think all their comments are directed at us.
I think that the world wide vaccine roll out can only be successful if we all work together, and not greedily monopolise the supply. We will not be travelling abroad until the level of vaccinations are increased in the popular holiday destinations.
1. Completely agree 2. You continue to ignore the relevance of the timings. Why do you think the UK is perfectly happy to pay more? The only possible answers are:- (1) We have a better deal; or (2) We are really, really stupid. I think it is (1), you think (2). Funny how the EU want the same benefits, but ignore the fact that their "cost" is less than ours. Don't see them offering to equal the price.
I was just stating facts, and dont have the knowledge to draw conclusions. The EU invested 100s of millions into AZ prior to entering into a contract. The contract incorporated a deliver schedule. AZ are in breach of their contract in this respect. As far as I am aware the EU is not haggling over benefits, they just want their contract to be honoured. I think that the EU have every right to feel outraged after investing 330 million euros upfront in AZ, to end up where they are today. I also think they have every right to feel offended by the bs excuses. The EU may have been given a preferential price because they ordered four times the quantity that the UK ordered. I am certain that AZ didnt make it clear during contract negotiations that they would screw the EU over on the delivery schedule.
3. AZ's actions are not perfect. But the EU should not be blaming the UK for AZ's actions, nor should they be carrying out modern-day piracy. This will hurt the EU's members going forward-an example is today's decision by GSK to have their vaccine made in the UK, rather than the EU (as had been previously planned). The EU is all about what is best for the EU Commission-they need to focus on their members. 4. 400 million AZ vaccines. And 1.6 billion vaccines ordered from the USA. And you (like the EU) only want to talk about the 20%. Ignoring the 80%. The EU looks terrible in all this.
That is a very optimistic view of AZs actions. I was sticking to the details of the dispute which as you say is between AZ and the EU. I would find it difficult to believe that the UK Government have not had a hand in it.
There's going to be delays in travelling abroad. But fewer deaths in the UK as a result of this, and the ability to open our economy earlier.
Canada pauses use of AstraZeneca's Covid vaccine for under-55s over lingering blood clot fears - despite EU regulators ruling the shot safe
Health Canada officials recommended the suspension of the use of AstraZeneca's Covid vaccine in people 55 or younger, 'out of an abundance of caution' over blood clots.
1. Completely agree 2. You continue to ignore the relevance of the timings. Why do you think the UK is perfectly happy to pay more? The only possible answers are:- (1) We have a better deal; or (2) We are really, really stupid. I think it is (1), you think (2). Funny how the EU want the same benefits, but ignore the fact that their "cost" is less than ours. Don't see them offering to equal the price. 3. AZ's actions are not perfect. But the EU should not be blaming the UK for AZ's actions, nor should they be carrying out modern-day piracy. This will hurt the EU's members going forward-an example is today's decision by GSK to have their vaccine made in the UK, rather than the EU (as had been previously planned). The EU is all about what is best for the EU Commission-they need to focus on their members. 4. 400 million AZ vaccines. And 1.6 billion vaccines ordered from the USA. And you (like the EU) only want to talk about the 20%. Ignoring the 80%. The EU looks terrible in all this.
There's going to be delays in travelling abroad. But fewer deaths in the UK as a result of this, and the ability to open our economy earlier.
I'd rather miss a holiday.
Brexit ultimatum: Bitter MEP threatens to veto UK trade deal as revenge for vaccine row
Frenchman Pierre Karleskind, chair of the fisheries committee, claimed Downing Street was giving MEPs a reason to vote down the future relationship treaty. He argued No10's suggestion the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was funded by UK taxpayers could be provocative to euro politicians ahead of their ballot to ratify the trade and security pact. The EU Parliament has yet to ratify the Brexit trade agreement and is expected to vote on whether to approve it next month.
Writing on social media, Mr Karleskind said: "Dear Downing Street, you should consider the fact that giving arguments against the ratification of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is not a good idea.
"Seven hundred and five members of the European Parliament still have to make their mind up before the end of April."
The Frenchman, a member of President Emmanuel Macron's party, was responding to reports British diplomats will tell the EU this week they must take into account the millions spent by British taxpayers on creating the AstraZeneca jab in talks over the bloc's export ban.
Wrangling between London and Brussels is expected to resume this week after eurocrats threatened to block shipments of millions of doses of the Oxford vaccine heading to our shores.
No10 wants to broker a compromise in the stand-off over immunisations manufactured at the Halix plant in Leiden, the Netherlands.
The facility is set to produce around five million doses a week, which Brussels is demanding the lion's share of because it feels AstraZeneca has not delivered enough jabs to member states.
EU-UK negotiations this week will focus on defining "reciprocity" and whether a deal could factor in investment in vaccine development.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week demanded "reciprocity" after she complained to EU leaders that the bloc had shipped 21 million vaccines to Britain since December but received none in return.
British officials are expected to argue the country has limited production capacities, with no international recognised vaccines manufacturing capabilities before the pandemic.
They will tell their Brussels counterparts UK taxpayers invested more than £80 million to help AstraZeneca manufacture the jab produced by scientists at Oxford University.
The Anglo-Swedish pharma firm agreed to produce the vaccine at cost price and under an open licence after the Government helped negotiate its partnership with the Oxford scientists.
Without this, UK diplomats will say there would have been no vaccine to help the global fight against the coronavirus pandemic.
The UK also wants Brussels to recognise it exports raw materials to the Pfizer vaccine plant in Belgium, for the production of the EU's most-used jab.
It will be stressed the Government also plans to spend around £15 billion in the coming years on research on drugs, treatments and vaccines for Covid.
EU insiders say the UK suggestions "seemed fair" but the German investment in the Pfizer jab would also have to be taken into account.
Berlin has pumped in around £289 million to produce the vaccine alongside BioNTech.
Brussels and London are expected to reach an agreement after they issued a joint statement to cool tensions.
They said they would "create a win-win situation and expand vaccine supply for all our citizens".
Germany and the Netherlands are leading a group of countries that don't want Mrs von der Leyen to blockade British vaccines amid fears it will wreck European supply chains.
But France's Emmanuel Macron has repeated threats that AstraZeneca shipments to Britain, despite none being planned, should be blocked and kept for mainland Europe.
1. "Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally."
Dumb luck may well be part of it. But not all of it. The vaccine roll-out has been as good as Track & Trace was bad. Many people believed that we could act quicker and more decisively if we were not tied to the juggernaut that is the EU. And it is clear that some of the time, that is true. And vaccine roll-out is looking very important right now. So much so that, as @HANSON pointed out, the EU is fighting for its very survival right now.
I wouldnt know about that. I was merely making the point that such a well organised roll out would seem to be the exception rather than the rule, if you take into account their track record. I have no real criticism of the UK vaccine roll out. The American roll out has also been good. Their target was 100 million vaccinations in Bidens first 100 days. They accomplished it in 58, and plan to do another 100 million with the 100 days.
2. "The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying."
It is not confusing once you understand the way Big Pharma works.
The fixed costs are massive. The R&D, the clinical trials, the regulatory hoops. All at a massive risk. So (for example) many companies spent a fortune on SARS vaccines/treatments, and lost a fortune. A lot of these costs have been expended before anyone buys them.
I understand that. Both the EU, and UK Government invested money upfront. My point is that if they are supplying the vaccine at cost, you would assume that the cost would be the same to the UK and EU. The EU is paying less than 60% of the cost to the UK. This mounts up over hundreds of millions of doses. What makes this more peculiar is that Matt Hancock was making out that the UK has a preferential deal with AZ.
So-the first large country to give regulatory approval and place a large order is an absolute godsend to AZ or Pfizer. And, because no-one knows how many more orders there will be, more of the initial costs are passed to the first buyer (The UK for AZ). That is why the price is higher. And why the UK gets a level of priority, above "best endeavours". Which the EU know fine well. Because it happens all the time.
This just sounds like a cunning plan. Be first to order. Invest hundreds of millions upfront. And pay around 40% more per dose, on an order of 100 million.
3. "Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?"
The EU's investment was primarily for vaccines. And only negotiated after the massive risks associated with the UK investment had passed.
I am struggling to believe that the EU's advisers were not able to realise that there was going to be an element of being 2nd in the queue. I'm quite willing to believe that they were not aware how far behind they would be, either with the US or the UK. But they knew they would be behind.
AZ signed a contract with the EU to supply 90 million doses by the end of March, and fell short by about 60 million. They were obviously aware of their obligation to the UK, when they signed this contract. If the EU demands were unrealistic, they shouldnt have signed the contract.
4. "The Americans have blocked exports that will affect output in the Pfizer factory in Belgium, that supplies the UK, and EU. Yet there has been no criticism of the Americans. I wonder why?"
A good point. Particularly on the EU side. Because they have, unlike the UK, sought the majority of their vaccines from Pfizer. But they are too busy blaming the UK. Because they are scared as to what this may mean for the future of the EU.
The EU have ordered 400 million doses of AZ, compared to 100 million for the UK. The EU have clearly commented on this, but the UK think all their comments are directed at us.
I think that the world wide vaccine roll out can only be successful if we all work together, and not greedily monopolise the supply. We will not be travelling abroad until the level of vaccinations are increased in the popular holiday destinations.
1. Completely agree 2. You continue to ignore the relevance of the timings. Why do you think the UK is perfectly happy to pay more? The only possible answers are:- (1) We have a better deal; or (2) We are really, really stupid. I think it is (1), you think (2). Funny how the EU want the same benefits, but ignore the fact that their "cost" is less than ours. Don't see them offering to equal the price. 3. AZ's actions are not perfect. But the EU should not be blaming the UK for AZ's actions, nor should they be carrying out modern-day piracy. This will hurt the EU's members going forward-an example is today's decision by GSK to have their vaccine made in the UK, rather than the EU (as had been previously planned). The EU is all about what is best for the EU Commission-they need to focus on their members. 4. 400 million AZ vaccines. And 1.6 billion vaccines ordered from the USA. And you (like the EU) only want to talk about the 20%. Ignoring the 80%. The EU looks terrible in all this.
There's going to be delays in travelling abroad. But fewer deaths in the UK as a result of this, and the ability to open our economy earlier.
I'd rather miss a holiday.
Just to recap. I suppose the investment in AZ becomes difficult to argue when the UK invested £80 million compared to the EUs 330 million euros. In addition to this the Germans invested £289 million into Pfizer BioNTech, compared to nothing from the UK. Yet the EU are supplying us with millions of doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and we have sent them nothing. Anyone thinking that this is fair or equitable is deluded.
its possible i miss heard the 2 billion figure it could have been for the year and i should have checked first..
At the end of the day AZ say they are not breaking there contract with the EU . the EU says they are so there is a dispute .
it does seem strange that if the EU is 100% sure that there contract has been broken then why not take AZ to court and get it sorted .
I can only assume that Tony has a in-depth knowledge of the EUs contract and the UKs to find it difficult that the government has not had a hand in it ,, his words ,,
I guess it will get sorted out soon one way or another
its possible i miss heard the 2 billion figure it could have been for the year and i should have checked first..
At the end of the day AZ say they are not breaking there contract with the EU . the EU says they are so there is a dispute .
There is no dispute over the fact that they were meant to deliver 90 million doses to the EU before the end of March. There is no dispute that they havent. Redacted contracts have been published. There is no doubt that the EU contract included a provision that they would be supplied by their UK plants.
it does seem strange that if the EU is 100% sure that there contract has been broken then why not take AZ to court and get it sorted .
I think that in many cases going to court is the last resort. Although this may be where they end up. It would be silly to think that anyone would place an order for 400 million doses, and stipulate that the supplier should just deliver at their leisure, particularly when you consider the urgency involved in the supply of vaccines.
I can only assume that Tony has a in-depth knowledge of the EUs contract and the UKs to find it difficult that the government has not had a hand in it ,, his words ,,
I said that I find it difficult to believe that the UK Government has not had a hand in it. I wasnt stating this as a fact. Here are some more facts. AZ contracted to deliver 90 million doses to the EU before the end of March. This looks likely to end up at 31 million. AZ blamed production delays for the shortfall. How could these delays only affect the EU deliveries? How has the UK supply been completely unaffected? Without any intervention dont you think that a supplier might treat 2 customers equally? I dont think that the EU would have made a fuss if AZ had delivered a shortfall on both contracts, and there really were production delays.
I guess it will get sorted out soon one way or another
its possible i miss heard the 2 billion figure it could have been for the year and i should have checked first..
At the end of the day AZ say they are not breaking there contract with the EU . the EU says they are so there is a dispute .
it does seem strange that if the EU is 100% sure that there contract has been broken then why not take AZ to court and get it sorted .
I can only assume that Tony has a in-depth knowledge of the EUs contract and the UKs to find it difficult that the government has not had a hand in it ,, his words ,,
I guess it will get sorted out soon one way or another
AstraZeneca vaccine - was it really worth it?
'We used our best efforts' The insider added: "We signed a contract on a best efforts' basis and we used our best efforts."
This is where Astra's lack of experience in vaccines really tripped it up - managing expectations through simple and effective communication.
From the start, its efficacy numbers were hard to grasp, with separate numbers for different age groups.
Questions were asked over sample sizes in over 65s and efficacy numbers submitted to US regulators had to be revised down when more up-to-date results were included.
None of these made much of a difference to the overall picture - one of a safe and effective vaccine - but it fostered an impression the company was not being entirely competent, or entirely honest.
One source told the BBC that "if you looked on an organisational chart of AstraZeneca, the box labelled vaccine management wouldn't have much in it".
The company has already said it will review the status of its "not-for-profit" stance on its vaccine work when current contracts have been fulfilled.
A major investor suggested that when the contracts are fulfilled, this could be a moment the management review whether they want to be in the business at all.
its possible i miss heard the 2 billion figure it could have been for the year and i should have checked first..
At the end of the day AZ say they are not breaking there contract with the EU . the EU says they are so there is a dispute .
it does seem strange that if the EU is 100% sure that there contract has been broken then why not take AZ to court and get it sorted .
I can only assume that Tony has a in-depth knowledge of the EUs contract and the UKs to find it difficult that the government has not had a hand in it ,, his words ,,
I guess it will get sorted out soon one way or another
AstraZeneca vaccine - was it really worth it?
'We used our best efforts' The insider added: "We signed a contract on a best efforts' basis and we used our best efforts."
This is where Astra's lack of experience in vaccines really tripped it up - managing expectations through simple and effective communication.
From the start, its efficacy numbers were hard to grasp, with separate numbers for different age groups.
Questions were asked over sample sizes in over 65s and efficacy numbers submitted to US regulators had to be revised down when more up-to-date results were included.
None of these made much of a difference to the overall picture - one of a safe and effective vaccine - but it fostered an impression the company was not being entirely competent, or entirely honest.
One source told the BBC that "if you looked on an organisational chart of AstraZeneca, the box labelled vaccine management wouldn't have much in it".
The company has already said it will review the status of its "not-for-profit" stance on its vaccine work when current contracts have been fulfilled.
A major investor suggested that when the contracts are fulfilled, this could be a moment the management review whether they want to be in the business at all.
Classic example of how "facts" can be used in a biased way.
If you want to criticise AZ, you use the facts in this way. Whereas if you want to give context to the facts, you use them to compare with the competition, not some idealised perfection.
Let's compare and contrast with BionTech. A Company with no experience in vaccines. That has never produced anything in large quantities. That, rather than build new plant throughout the world, is making stuff in a lab that it has borrowed from a far larger Company. In short,
"if you looked on an organisational chart of BionTech, the box labelled vaccine management would have nothing in it."
If AZ was German (or American), do you think the EU would be attacking it in this way? No.
its possible i miss heard the 2 billion figure it could have been for the year and i should have checked first..
At the end of the day AZ say they are not breaking there contract with the EU . the EU says they are so there is a dispute .
it does seem strange that if the EU is 100% sure that there contract has been broken then why not take AZ to court and get it sorted .
I can only assume that Tony has a in-depth knowledge of the EUs contract and the UKs to find it difficult that the government has not had a hand in it ,, his words ,,
I guess it will get sorted out soon one way or another
AstraZeneca vaccine - was it really worth it?
'We used our best efforts' The insider added: "We signed a contract on a best efforts' basis and we used our best efforts."
This is where Astra's lack of experience in vaccines really tripped it up - managing expectations through simple and effective communication.
From the start, its efficacy numbers were hard to grasp, with separate numbers for different age groups.
Questions were asked over sample sizes in over 65s and efficacy numbers submitted to US regulators had to be revised down when more up-to-date results were included.
None of these made much of a difference to the overall picture - one of a safe and effective vaccine - but it fostered an impression the company was not being entirely competent, or entirely honest.
One source told the BBC that "if you looked on an organisational chart of AstraZeneca, the box labelled vaccine management wouldn't have much in it".
The company has already said it will review the status of its "not-for-profit" stance on its vaccine work when current contracts have been fulfilled.
A major investor suggested that when the contracts are fulfilled, this could be a moment the management review whether they want to be in the business at all.
Classic example of how "facts" can be used in a biased way.
If you want to criticise AZ, you use the facts in this way. Whereas if you want to give context to the facts, you use them to compare with the competition, not some idealised perfection.
Let's compare and contrast with BionTech. A Company with no experience in vaccines. That has never produced anything in large quantities. That, rather than build new plant throughout the world, is making stuff in a lab that it has borrowed from a far larger Company. In short,
"if you looked on an organisational chart of BionTech, the box labelled vaccine management would have nothing in it."
They are however ahead of target on the supply of vaccines, unlike AZ.
Comments
Although I did watch "Dateline London" on the weekend which clarified the position quite well.
I accept that the EU have screwed up their vaccine roll out.
I also accept that the UK havent.
Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally.
I also accept that there have been unfortunate comments made by politicians on both sides, although the EU comments receive more publicity on this side of the channel.
Some aspects are very clear, others arent.
The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying.
The UK did not benefit from Brexit in any way as we were still members of the EU when we made our vaccine arrangements, and any other EU member could have made similar arrangements.
Some have argued that we should take precedence in the case of AZ supplies, because we funded them, yet the EU also invested something like 330 million euros in AZ, which can only be seen as a complete waste of money.
AZ have blamed production delays for the EU shortage of supplies.
Yet these production delays have affected the EU supply dramatically, and left the UK supply unaffected.
Thats a very tough one to explain.
Matt Hancock came out and said "thats contract law", before going on to explain that the UK has an exclusive contract with AZ.
Now I thought I knew the meaning of "exclusive", but clearly not.
If the UK has an exclusive contract with AZ for the vaccine, how could they also sign a contract with the EU?
Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?
The Indian Government have suspended exports of the vaccine leaving the UK 5 million doses short of the AZ vaccine.
Exclusivity?
This is in complete contradiction to what Boris had to say about it.
He maintained that the Indian Government had not interfered.
So the EU have been lambasted for merely threatening to do something that the Indian Government has actually done.
Yet the Indians are facing no repercussions, and have ruled that there will be no exports until further notice.
The Americans have blocked exports that will affect output in the Pfizer factory in Belgium, that supplies the UK, and EU.
Yet there has been no criticism of the Americans.
I wonder why?
The EU just seem to want fairness.
According to "Dateline London", the EU have exported 77 million doses of the vaccine to other countries, 30 million of these to the UK.
The UK have exported none to the EU.
The American export restrictions will also affect The Serum Institute in India, the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world, and suppliers of the AZ vaccine.
They will supply the UK at some point in the future, but not on schedule.
Moderna Speeds Up Two Delivery Dates for 200M COVID-19 ...
www.newsmax.com/us/moderna-pfizer-vaccine-covid/...
Moderna will move up delivery for two rounds of 100 million COVID-19 vaccine doses by months, the company announced Tuesday. Doses originally scheduled to be delivered at the end of June now are scheduled for the end of May, per the Washington Examiner.
Pfizer Will Deliver Vaccines Ahead Of Schedule - Simplemost
www.simplemost.com/pfizer-will-deliver-vaccines...
27/01/2021 · Pfizer is able to accelerate the delivery of doses because of a change in the vaccine’s label that allows providers to extract an additional dose from each vial (so each vial will provide six
1. "Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally."
Dumb luck may well be part of it. But not all of it. The vaccine roll-out has been as good as Track & Trace was bad. Many people believed that we could act quicker and more decisively if we were not tied to the juggernaut that is the EU. And it is clear that some of the time, that is true. And vaccine roll-out is looking very important right now. So much so that, as @HANSON pointed out, the EU is fighting for its very survival right now.
2. "The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying."
It is not confusing once you understand the way Big Pharma works.
The fixed costs are massive. The R&D, the clinical trials, the regulatory hoops. All at a massive risk. So (for example) many companies spent a fortune on SARS vaccines/treatments, and lost a fortune. A lot of these costs have been expended before anyone buys them.
So-the first large country to give regulatory approval and place a large order is an absolute godsend to AZ or Pfizer. And, because no-one knows how many more orders there will be, more of the initial costs are passed to the first buyer (The UK for AZ). That is why the price is higher. And why the UK gets a level of priority, above "best endeavours". Which the EU know fine well. Because it happens all the time.
3. "Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?"
The EU's investment was primarily for vaccines. And only negotiated after the massive risks associated with the UK investment had passed.
I am struggling to believe that the EU's advisers were not able to realise that there was going to be an element of being 2nd in the queue. I'm quite willing to believe that they were not aware how far behind they would be, either with the US or the UK. But they knew they would be behind.
4. "The Americans have blocked exports that will affect output in the Pfizer factory in Belgium, that supplies the UK, and EU.
Yet there has been no criticism of the Americans.
I wonder why?"
A good point. Particularly on the EU side. Because they have, unlike the UK, sought the majority of their vaccines from Pfizer. But they are too busy blaming the UK. Because they are scared as to what this may mean for the future of the EU.
I have had enough of the vaccine row.
Although I did watch "Dateline London" on the weekend which clarified the position quite well.
I accept that the EU have screwed up their vaccine roll out.
I also accept that the UK havent.
Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally.
I also accept that there have been unfortunate comments made by politicians on both sides, although the EU comments receive more publicity on this side of the channel.
Some aspects are very clear, others arent.
The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying.
The UK did not benefit from Brexit in any way as we were still members of the EU when we made our vaccine arrangements, and any other EU member could have made similar arrangements.
Some have argued that we should take precedence in the case of AZ supplies, because we funded them, yet the EU also invested something like 330 million euros in AZ, which can only be seen as a complete waste of money.
AZ have blamed production delays for the EU shortage of supplies.
Yet these production delays have affected the EU supply dramatically, and left the UK supply unaffected.
Thats a very tough one to explain.
Matt Hancock came out and said "thats contract law", before going on to explain that the UK has an exclusive contract with AZ.
Now I thought I knew the meaning of "exclusive", but clearly not.
If the UK has an exclusive contract with AZ for the vaccine, how could they also sign a contract with the EU?
Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?
The Indian Government have suspended exports of the vaccine leaving the UK 5 million doses short of the AZ vaccine.
Exclusivity?
This is in complete contradiction to what Boris had to say about it.
He maintained that the Indian Government had not interfered.
So the EU have been lambasted for merely threatening to do something that the Indian Government has actually done.
Yet the Indians are facing no repercussions, and have ruled that there will be no exports until further notice.
The EU just seem to want fairness.
According to "Dateline London", the EU have exported 77 million doses of the vaccine to other countries, 30 million of these to the UK.
The UK have exported none to the EU.
The American export restrictions will also affect The Serum Institute in India, the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world, and suppliers of the AZ vaccine.
They will supply the UK at some point in the future, but not on schedule.
You make some interesting points in your last post. Thought it might help if i clarify some of these:-
1. "Although I would put the UK success down to dumb luck, as when you compare the roll out to other stuff like PPE, and Test and Trace, you have to question whether it could be down to being organised professionally."
Dumb luck may well be part of it. But not all of it. The vaccine roll-out has been as good as Track & Trace was bad. Many people believed that we could act quicker and more decisively if we were not tied to the juggernaut that is the EU. And it is clear that some of the time, that is true. And vaccine roll-out is looking very important right now. So much so that, as @HANSON pointed out, the EU is fighting for its very survival right now.
I wouldnt know about that.
I was merely making the point that such a well organised roll out would seem to be the exception rather than the rule, if you take into account their track record.
I have no real criticism of the UK vaccine roll out.
The American roll out has also been good.
Their target was 100 million vaccinations in Bidens first 100 days.
They accomplished it in 58, and plan to do another 100 million with the 100 days.
2. "The fact that AZ is supposed to be supplying the vaccine at cost is confusing when you consider that EU is paying just over half the price that the UK is paying."
It is not confusing once you understand the way Big Pharma works.
The fixed costs are massive. The R&D, the clinical trials, the regulatory hoops. All at a massive risk. So (for example) many companies spent a fortune on SARS vaccines/treatments, and lost a fortune. A lot of these costs have been expended before anyone buys them.
I understand that.
Both the EU, and UK Government invested money upfront.
My point is that if they are supplying the vaccine at cost, you would assume that the cost would be the same to the UK and EU.
The EU is paying less than 60% of the cost to the UK.
This mounts up over hundreds of millions of doses.
What makes this more peculiar is that Matt Hancock was making out that the UK has a preferential deal with AZ.
So-the first large country to give regulatory approval and place a large order is an absolute godsend to AZ or Pfizer. And, because no-one knows how many more orders there will be, more of the initial costs are passed to the first buyer (The UK for AZ). That is why the price is higher. And why the UK gets a level of priority, above "best endeavours". Which the EU know fine well. Because it happens all the time.
This just sounds like a cunning plan.
Be first to order.
Invest hundreds of millions upfront.
And pay around 40% more per dose, on an order of 100 million.
3. "Why would the EU sign a contract with AZ, if they were aware of the UKs exclusive contract?
Why would the EU invest hundreds of millions into AZ, if it was clear that they would only receive the left overs after the UK had been supplied?"
The EU's investment was primarily for vaccines. And only negotiated after the massive risks associated with the UK investment had passed.
I am struggling to believe that the EU's advisers were not able to realise that there was going to be an element of being 2nd in the queue. I'm quite willing to believe that they were not aware how far behind they would be, either with the US or the UK. But they knew they would be behind.
AZ signed a contract with the EU to supply 90 million doses by the end of March, and fell short by about 60 million.
They were obviously aware of their obligation to the UK, when they signed this contract.
If the EU demands were unrealistic, they shouldnt have signed the contract.
4. "The Americans have blocked exports that will affect output in the Pfizer factory in Belgium, that supplies the UK, and EU.
Yet there has been no criticism of the Americans.
I wonder why?"
A good point. Particularly on the EU side. Because they have, unlike the UK, sought the majority of their vaccines from Pfizer. But they are too busy blaming the UK. Because they are scared as to what this may mean for the future of the EU.
The EU have ordered 400 million doses of AZ, compared to 100 million for the UK.
The EU have clearly commented on this, but the UK think all their comments are directed at us.
I think that the world wide vaccine roll out can only be successful if we all work together, and not greedily monopolise the supply.
We will not be travelling abroad until the level of vaccinations are increased in the popular holiday destinations.
The US is threatening to impose tariffs of up to 25 per cent on some UK exports as it retaliates over Britain's new 'unreasonable' and 'discriminatory' tax on big tech firms.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9414879/US-threatens-impose-tariffs-UK-exports-tech-firm-tax-row.html
Ten countries, including Germany and France, will no longer extradite their nationals to the UK after Brexit ended the country's participation in the European Arrest Warrants scheme.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9414733/France-Germany-not-extradite-criminal-suspects-Britain-Brexit.html
The EU have clearly commented on this, but the UK think all their comments are directed at us.
I think that the world wide vaccine roll out can only be successful if we all work together, and not greedily monopolise the supply.
We will not be travelling abroad until the level of vaccinations are increased in the popular holiday destinations.
1. Completely agree
2. You continue to ignore the relevance of the timings. Why do you think the UK is perfectly happy to pay more? The only possible answers are:-
(1) We have a better deal; or
(2) We are really, really stupid.
I think it is (1), you think (2). Funny how the EU want the same benefits, but ignore the fact that their "cost" is less than ours. Don't see them offering to equal the price.
3. AZ's actions are not perfect. But the EU should not be blaming the UK for AZ's actions, nor should they be carrying out modern-day piracy. This will hurt the EU's members going forward-an example is today's decision by GSK to have their vaccine made in the UK, rather than the EU (as had been previously planned). The EU is all about what is best for the EU Commission-they need to focus on their members.
4. 400 million AZ vaccines. And 1.6 billion vaccines ordered from the USA. And you (like the EU) only want to talk about the 20%. Ignoring the 80%. The EU looks terrible in all this.
There's going to be delays in travelling abroad. But fewer deaths in the UK as a result of this, and the ability to open our economy earlier.
I'd rather miss a holiday.
i also believe AZ have been fair to share there finished doses out fairly to all those that have contracts worldwide the UKs rollout has been excellent we get doses out to the UK population and it looks like we are racing ahead but we only have the UK to vaccinate where as the EU get doses delivered then have to share them out between 27 countries as that was the model they chose to follow ..
As has been said the UK took a risk early on but it was a risk worth taking and paid off.
I strongly believe if the EU instead of slating the AZ jab making threats to raid factories and take jabs and blockade any shipments from leaving the EU and ended up having millions of doses in storage because of the mistrust in it now .. just asked for some assistance nicely but they just could not bring themselves to do that can they ...
Also, by the way they have been acting if it was the other way round and the UK was struggling they would more than likely say you chose to go it alone now deal with it just my opinion .. anyway i hope the UK does the right thing and help as much as we can while keeping up with our own rollout ...
The EU citizens deserved better from there commission
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
The EU has exported 41.6 million vaccines so far, 10 million of which were to the UK.
OUR VERDICT
This is how many vaccines manufacturers in EU member states have exported.
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
The UK and US have exported no vaccines.
OUR VERDICT
This is probably true, although the US plans to. A firm based in the UK does export ingredients used in the production of the Pfizer vaccine.
A viral tweet claims that the EU has exported 41.6 million vaccines, mostly to the UK, while the US and UK have exported none. A screenshot of the tweet has also been spreading on Facebook.
This 41.6 million figure and the graph in the image come from Bloomberg. The outlet said these figures were correct as of 15 March and come from “an EU document seen by Bloomberg” which was shared with EU ambassadors.
The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said on 17 March that over the previous six weeks, 41 million doses had been exported to 33 countries.
This is how many vaccines have been exported from vaccine manufacturers in EU states, rather than by the EU as an organisation.
By comparison, it’s unclear how many Covid-19 vaccines have been exported from the UK to other countries.
Of the vaccines approved for use in the UK, only the AstraZeneca vaccine is made here. The UK government and AstraZeneca have repeatedly declined to say how many Covid-19 vaccines the UK has exported, but it’s likely zero. Some ingredients for the Pfizer vaccine are reportedly exported from the UK to Pfizer factories in EU member states.
As for the US, the White House said on 18 March that although not yet finalised, it was planning to send four million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine to Mexico and Canada.
Vaccine nationalism?
The reason why so many more vaccines have left EU member states than the UK has been the source of much contention.
European Council President, Charles Michel, claimed that the United Kingdom and the United States had imposed an “outright ban on the export of vaccines or vaccine components produced on their territory.”
Responding to Mr Michel’s comments, Boris Johnson told the Commons the next day: “I...wish to correct the suggestion from the European Council President that the UK has blocked vaccine exports. Let me be clear: we have not blocked the export of a single covid-19 vaccine or vaccine components.”
On the same day, President Michel told POLITICO: “They said that they didn’t decide a ban in the U.K. We know, and I know because I am a politician, that there are different ways to impose a ban or to impose restrictions on vaccines and/or on medicines, because on medicines there is a clear ban.
“But the question is the following: how many doses did they export? This is a very simple question, and since yesterday I haven’t heard the answer to this very simple question.”
But it does also seem to be the case that no vaccines manufactured in the UK have been exported.
https://fullfact.org/online/vaccine-export-eu/
2. You continue to ignore the relevance of the timings. Why do you think the UK is perfectly happy to pay more? The only possible answers are:-
(1) We have a better deal; or
(2) We are really, really stupid.
I think it is (1), you think (2). Funny how the EU want the same benefits, but ignore the fact that their "cost" is less than ours. Don't see them offering to equal the price.
I was just stating facts, and dont have the knowledge to draw conclusions.
The EU invested 100s of millions into AZ prior to entering into a contract.
The contract incorporated a deliver schedule.
AZ are in breach of their contract in this respect.
As far as I am aware the EU is not haggling over benefits, they just want their contract to be honoured.
I think that the EU have every right to feel outraged after investing 330 million euros upfront in AZ, to end up where they are today.
I also think they have every right to feel offended by the bs excuses.
The EU may have been given a preferential price because they ordered four times the quantity that the UK ordered.
I am certain that AZ didnt make it clear during contract negotiations that they would screw the EU over on the delivery schedule.
3. AZ's actions are not perfect. But the EU should not be blaming the UK for AZ's actions, nor should they be carrying out modern-day piracy. This will hurt the EU's members going forward-an example is today's decision by GSK to have their vaccine made in the UK, rather than the EU (as had been previously planned). The EU is all about what is best for the EU Commission-they need to focus on their members.
4. 400 million AZ vaccines. And 1.6 billion vaccines ordered from the USA. And you (like the EU) only want to talk about the 20%. Ignoring the 80%. The EU looks terrible in all this.
That is a very optimistic view of AZs actions.
I was sticking to the details of the dispute which as you say is between AZ and the EU.
I would find it difficult to believe that the UK Government have not had a hand in it.
There's going to be delays in travelling abroad. But fewer deaths in the UK as a result of this, and the ability to open our economy earlier.
I'd rather miss a holiday.
Health Canada officials recommended the suspension of the use of AstraZeneca's Covid vaccine in people 55 or younger, 'out of an abundance of caution' over blood clots.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9415509/Canadian-panel-recommends-AstraZeneca-pause-55.html
1. Completely agree
2. You continue to ignore the relevance of the timings. Why do you think the UK is perfectly happy to pay more? The only possible answers are:-
(1) We have a better deal; or
(2) We are really, really stupid.
I think it is (1), you think (2). Funny how the EU want the same benefits, but ignore the fact that their "cost" is less than ours. Don't see them offering to equal the price.
3. AZ's actions are not perfect. But the EU should not be blaming the UK for AZ's actions, nor should they be carrying out modern-day piracy. This will hurt the EU's members going forward-an example is today's decision by GSK to have their vaccine made in the UK, rather than the EU (as had been previously planned). The EU is all about what is best for the EU Commission-they need to focus on their members.
4. 400 million AZ vaccines. And 1.6 billion vaccines ordered from the USA. And you (like the EU) only want to talk about the 20%. Ignoring the 80%. The EU looks terrible in all this.
There's going to be delays in travelling abroad. But fewer deaths in the UK as a result of this, and the ability to open our economy earlier.
I'd rather miss a holiday.
Brexit ultimatum: Bitter MEP threatens to veto UK trade deal as revenge for vaccine row
Frenchman Pierre Karleskind, chair of the fisheries committee, claimed Downing Street was giving MEPs a reason to vote down the future relationship treaty. He argued No10's suggestion the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was funded by UK taxpayers could be provocative to euro politicians ahead of their ballot to ratify the trade and security pact. The EU Parliament has yet to ratify the Brexit trade agreement and is expected to vote on whether to approve it next month.
Writing on social media, Mr Karleskind said: "Dear Downing Street, you should consider the fact that giving arguments against the ratification of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is not a good idea.
"Seven hundred and five members of the European Parliament still have to make their mind up before the end of April."
The Frenchman, a member of President Emmanuel Macron's party, was responding to reports British diplomats will tell the EU this week they must take into account the millions spent by British taxpayers on creating the AstraZeneca jab in talks over the bloc's export ban.
Wrangling between London and Brussels is expected to resume this week after eurocrats threatened to block shipments of millions of doses of the Oxford vaccine heading to our shores.
No10 wants to broker a compromise in the stand-off over immunisations manufactured at the Halix plant in Leiden, the Netherlands.
The facility is set to produce around five million doses a week, which Brussels is demanding the lion's share of because it feels AstraZeneca has not delivered enough jabs to member states.
EU-UK negotiations this week will focus on defining "reciprocity" and whether a deal could factor in investment in vaccine development.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week demanded "reciprocity" after she complained to EU leaders that the bloc had shipped 21 million vaccines to Britain since December but received none in return.
British officials are expected to argue the country has limited production capacities, with no international recognised vaccines manufacturing capabilities before the pandemic.
They will tell their Brussels counterparts UK taxpayers invested more than £80 million to help AstraZeneca manufacture the jab produced by scientists at Oxford University.
The Anglo-Swedish pharma firm agreed to produce the vaccine at cost price and under an open licence after the Government helped negotiate its partnership with the Oxford scientists.
Without this, UK diplomats will say there would have been no vaccine to help the global fight against the coronavirus pandemic.
The UK also wants Brussels to recognise it exports raw materials to the Pfizer vaccine plant in Belgium, for the production of the EU's most-used jab.
It will be stressed the Government also plans to spend around £15 billion in the coming years on research on drugs, treatments and vaccines for Covid.
EU insiders say the UK suggestions "seemed fair" but the German investment in the Pfizer jab would also have to be taken into account.
Berlin has pumped in around £289 million to produce the vaccine alongside BioNTech.
Brussels and London are expected to reach an agreement after they issued a joint statement to cool tensions.
They said they would "create a win-win situation and expand vaccine supply for all our citizens".
Germany and the Netherlands are leading a group of countries that don't want Mrs von der Leyen to blockade British vaccines amid fears it will wreck European supply chains.
But France's Emmanuel Macron has repeated threats that AstraZeneca shipments to Britain, despite none being planned, should be blocked and kept for mainland Europe.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/brexit-ultimatum-bitter-mep-threatens-to-veto-uk-trade-deal-as-revenge-for-vaccine-row/ar-BB1f548l?ocid=msedgntp
2. You continue to ignore the relevance of the timings. Why do you think the UK is perfectly happy to pay more? The only possible answers are:-
(1) We have a better deal; or
(2) We are really, really stupid.
I think it is (1), you think (2). Funny how the EU want the same benefits, but ignore the fact that their "cost" is less than ours. Don't see them offering to equal the price.
3. AZ's actions are not perfect. But the EU should not be blaming the UK for AZ's actions, nor should they be carrying out modern-day piracy. This will hurt the EU's members going forward-an example is today's decision by GSK to have their vaccine made in the UK, rather than the EU (as had been previously planned). The EU is all about what is best for the EU Commission-they need to focus on their members.
4. 400 million AZ vaccines. And 1.6 billion vaccines ordered from the USA. And you (like the EU) only want to talk about the 20%. Ignoring the 80%. The EU looks terrible in all this.
There's going to be delays in travelling abroad. But fewer deaths in the UK as a result of this, and the ability to open our economy earlier.
I'd rather miss a holiday.
Just to recap.
I suppose the investment in AZ becomes difficult to argue when the UK invested £80 million compared to the EUs 330 million euros.
In addition to this the Germans invested £289 million into Pfizer BioNTech, compared to nothing from the UK.
Yet the EU are supplying us with millions of doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and we have sent them nothing.
Anyone thinking that this is fair or equitable is deluded.
At the end of the day AZ say they are not breaking there contract with the EU .
the EU says they are so there is a dispute .
it does seem strange that if the EU is 100% sure that there contract has been broken then why not take AZ to court and get it sorted .
I can only assume that Tony has a in-depth knowledge of the EUs contract and the UKs to find it difficult that the government has not had a hand in it ,, his words ,,
I guess it will get sorted out soon one way or another
'We used our best efforts'
The insider added: "We signed a contract on a best efforts' basis and we used our best efforts."
This is where Astra's lack of experience in vaccines really tripped it up - managing expectations through simple and effective communication.
From the start, its efficacy numbers were hard to grasp, with separate numbers for different age groups.
Questions were asked over sample sizes in over 65s and efficacy numbers submitted to US regulators had to be revised down when more up-to-date results were included.
None of these made much of a difference to the overall picture - one of a safe and effective vaccine - but it fostered an impression the company was not being entirely competent, or entirely honest.
One source told the BBC that "if you looked on an organisational chart of AstraZeneca, the box labelled vaccine management wouldn't have much in it".
The company has already said it will review the status of its "not-for-profit" stance on its vaccine work when current contracts have been fulfilled.
A major investor suggested that when the contracts are fulfilled, this could be a moment the management review whether they want to be in the business at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56570364
If you want to criticise AZ, you use the facts in this way. Whereas if you want to give context to the facts, you use them to compare with the competition, not some idealised perfection.
Let's compare and contrast with BionTech. A Company with no experience in vaccines. That has never produced anything in large quantities. That, rather than build new plant throughout the world, is making stuff in a lab that it has borrowed from a far larger Company. In short,
"if you looked on an organisational chart of BionTech, the box labelled vaccine management would have nothing in it."
If AZ was German (or American), do you think the EU would be attacking it in this way? No.