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
The UK contract has not been published. You know, the 1 that says we are a preferential customer. The deal the first gets. At a higher price. And a higher risk. It is not "at their leisure"-it is "best endeavours". Which is most certainly not an unconditional promise.
The UK Government's involvement. You are quite right you were not stating this as a fact. You are just making it up. In a frankly desperate attempt to fit your narrative of the EU only tells the truth, and my (and your) country only tells lies.
And I am getting really bored with the EU's claim that it has exported X Million doses to the UK. It has not. It has exported 0. Because they are not their vaccines to export.
A quick example of how terrible the EU is on the vaccine front. The UK has offered to send millions of vaccines to Ireland. The EU says this cannot happen, as all EU countries must be treated equally. Except Germany, obviously. So EU lives matter less than EU dogma.
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.
Really? Do you mean Pfizer in America? They are ahead. But not BionTech. And not Pfizer in Europe. Fact.
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.
Really? Do you mean Pfizer in America? They are ahead. But not BionTech. And not Pfizer in Europe. Fact.
EU on course to reach vaccine target with accelerated Pfizer deliveries
The European Commission expects to receive more than 200 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech in the second quarter, it said on Tuesday, putting the European Union on course to meet its inoculation target.
The EU aims to vaccinate at least 255 million people, or 70 per cent of its adult population, by the end of the summer.
It has faced criticism of a slow rollout amid supply delays from some drugmakers, hiccups in vaccination plans and the suspension of inoculations using the AstraZeneca vaccine due to potential health issues.
The new expected deliveries from Pfizer include 10 million doses originally expected in the third and fourth quarters, the Commission said.
"These accelerated 10 million doses will bring the total doses of BioNTech-Pfizer in quarter two up to over 200 million," EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, revealing for the first time the volume of doses expected from Pfizer in the April-June quarter.
AstraZeneca last week announced it aimed to deliver to the 27-nation bloc 70 million doses in the second quarter from its original contractual obligation of 180 million.
BioNTech Raises 2021 Covid Vaccine Target to 2.5 Billion ... www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/... 16 hours ago · BioNTech SE and Pfizer Inc. raised this year’s production target for their Covid-19 vaccine to as many as 2.5 billion doses, with the German biotech’s chief executive predicting a version of ...
BioNTech-Pfizer raise 2021 vaccine output goal to 2.5 billion ... www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus... BioNTech said on Tuesday that it and partner Pfizer would increase manufacturing capacity of their COVID-19 vaccine to 2.5 billion doses by the end of 2021, unveiling for the first time projected ...
EU on course to reach vaccine target with accelerated Pfizer ... www.breakingnews.ie/covid-vaccine/eu-on-course... 16/03/2021 · The European Commission expects to receive more than 200 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech in the second quarter, it said on Tuesday, putting the European Union on course...
BioNTech raises 2021 Pfizer COVID vaccine target to 2.5bn ... www.thecable.ng/biontech-raises-2021-pfizer... 16 hours ago · BioNTech raises 2021 Pfizer COVID vaccine target to 2.5bn doses BioNTech, a German biotech company, says it will produce 2.5 billion doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in 2021.Advertisement The ...
Pfizer and BioNTech to accelerate deliveries of Covid-19 ... www.sharecast.com/news/international-companies/... Pfizer and BioNTech will bring forward some deliveries of their Covid-19 vaccine to the European Union to the ... they materialised would nevertheless push the bloc well above the 300m dose target.
You seriously believe that a press release saying they are going to catch up in the next 3 months means they are currently ahead?
Dearie me.
I have to laugh. They have increased their target for the year. They are delivering 10 million doses early.
Oh and what are AZ doing? They are going to be another 110 million doses short to the EU, in the next quarter.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. You have never done accounts, have you?
You believe the EU when they say they are not behind. While 4 times as many UK and 3 times as many US citizens have been vaccinated. Even including all the EU members who have been begging vaccine off Russia, China and Israel.
You believe that AZ are behind, whereas Pfizer's vaccine is magically coming from planned future orders. Not the untold millions they are already behind. You actually believe that guff about 10 million "early" doses?
You believe that 110 million figure is using the same data as the Pfizer. Whereas, in the real world, that 110 million has been counted before. Unlike the Pfizer shortfalls. which, apparently, don't exist.
Politicians play politics. This is the EU pretending that all is right in their world. When it just isn't true. Because politicians routinely twist facts to suit themselves.
TBF i hope they do catch up after they announced the pfzer jabs coming .. i do wonder what the fall out will be if there short thou .. will just have to wait and see..
Post-Brexit US trade deal in jeopardy as Joe Biden furious at London's tech tax crackdown
…
International Economics Professor Keith Pilbeam at City University in London warned the Digital Service Tax introduced last April could threaten an American post-Brexit trade deal as the US feels the tax unfairly targets them. The US dislikes the 2 percent revenue tax on digital companies as many operate in North America, with President Joe Biden threatening to slap down a sharp 25 percent tariff on some British goods in response. The UK says it wants digital firms to pay their "fair share of tax" but the US disagrees and says the tax is discriminatory towards American businesses.
TBF i hope they do catch up after they announced the pfzer jabs coming .. i do wonder what the fall out will be if there short thou .. will just have to wait and see..
Britain could be in for a rough ride with the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab, but there’s no need to panic
On Tuesday, Germany became the latest in a growing list of countries, including Canada and France, to suspend use of the vaccine in younger age groups. In Germany the cut off is 60, while in Canada and France only those age 55 and above are now receiving the jab.
Unfortunately, the issue is no longer political and is unlikely to be batted away as such.
Germany's medical regulator announced on Tuesday it had received a total of 31 reports of rare blood clots in recent recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Nine died and all but two of the cases involved women aged 20 to 63, the Paul Ehrlich Institute said.
The problem now is that more data is flowing in.
On Tuesday, a team of European researchers published a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint which looked at nine patients in Germany and Austria who developed thrombocytopenia and clots following vaccination.
“The AZD1222 vaccine is associated with development of a prothrombotic disorder that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia but which shows a different serological profile”, they said.
Not surprisingly, regulators in the UK, Europe and North America are now all racing to better understand if an association between the jab and the condition really exists and, if so, at what rate it occurs.
It is this second part of the puzzle which will prove crucial as all medicines carry some risk. The real question is whether or not the benefits will continue to outweigh the risks.
“The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several”, Sandra Ciesek, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfur told Science magazine this week. “So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
That is essentially the call Germany, France and Canada have made this week but it may not be as easy for the UK which is more reliant on the AstraZenica jab, for the moment at least.
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.
I have posted facts. I have also posted articles that include opinions. I have not misrepresented opinions as facts. I dont understand how facts can be used in a biased way, as they after all facts. You, on the other hand are posting many of your own opinions, and expect me to accept them, sometimes when they are in contradiction to the facts.
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.
How about these for facts. AZ were short of around 60 million doses for the EU in the first quarter. They plan to be a further 110 million short in the second quarter. This means that it will take another 3 months to deliver a little more than the number they should have delivered in quarter 1. A total of 101 million doses, when they contracted to supply 270 million. The shortfall has been caused by production delays. Yet they are still managing to meet the UKs requirement of 2 million per week.
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,
The Pfizer BioNTech delivery dates have been brought forward, and their annual target increased. I have not seen any complaints from the EU or UK. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Pfizer have some expertise in vaccines. On the other hand, AZ have had no previous experience with vaccines, and isnt that obvious.
"if you looked on an organisational chart of BionTech, the box labelled vaccine management would have nothing in it."
Maybe Pfizer add content to this particular box.
If AZ was German (or American), do you think the EU would be attacking it in this way? No.
Is that relevant. I find it incredible that you are unable to understand why AZ is being criticised. And even more incredible that you cant see that this criticism is fully justified.
Classic example of how "facts" can be used in a biased way.
I have posted facts. I have also posted articles that include opinions. I have not misrepresented opinions as facts. I dont understand how facts can be used in a biased way, as they after all facts. You, on the other hand are posting many of your own opinions, and expect me to accept them, sometimes when they are in contradiction to the facts.
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.
How about these for facts. AZ were short of around 60 million doses for the EU in the first quarter. They plan to be a further 110 million short in the second quarter. This means that it will take another 3 months to deliver a little more than the number they should have delivered in quarter 1. A total of 101 million doses, when they contracted to supply 270 million. The shortfall has been caused by production delays. Yet they are still managing to meet the UKs requirement of 2 million per week.
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,
The Pfizer BioNTech delivery dates have been brought forward, and their annual target increased. I have not seen any complaints from the EU or UK. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Pfizer have some expertise in vaccines. On the other hand, AZ have had no previous experience with vaccines, and isnt that obvious.
"if you looked on an organisational chart of BionTech, the box labelled vaccine management would have nothing in it."
Maybe Pfizer add content to this particular box.
If AZ was German (or American), do you think the EU would be attacking it in this way? No.
Is that relevant. I find it incredible that you are unable to understand why AZ is being criticised. And even more incredible that you cant see that this criticism is fully justified.
@pfizer on an accelerated delivery of 10 million doses for quarter 2.
This will bring the total deliveries of this vaccine to 200 million doses for that quarter.
It will give Member States room to manoeuvre and possibly fill gaps in deliveries.
AstraZeneca does not and has never had much experience with vaccines. Their strength is in treating cancer.
So when Covid hit, AstraZeneca was not necessarily the company many thought would lead the charge.
Since then, AstraZeneca has had a fraught relationship with regulators and politicians; its name has been unfairly but undoubtedly caught up in recriminations over a slow vaccine rollout in the EU; and the share price is 20% lower than it was last summer when the news flow seemed so positive.
So, if that's the case, is it not naïve at best and misleading at worst, to promise to deliver a fixed quantity of a potentially life or death product?
This is where Astra's lack of experience in vaccines really tripped it up - managing expectations through simple and effective communication.
In the US, Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), accused AstraZeneca of "unforced errors", in failing to include the most recent data in its trial submissions to US authorities.
Even insiders admit: "It's fair to say we are in a pretty uncomfortable spot right now."
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
The UK contract has not been published. You know, the 1 that says we are a preferential customer. The deal the first gets. At a higher price. And a higher risk. It is not "at their leisure"-it is "best endeavours". Which is most certainly not an unconditional promise.
You are really struggling now. You seem to be disclosing details of a contract that you say hasnt been published. How do you know that the contact says we have a preferential deal? How do you know about the terms and conditions? You havent been reliable on details so far. You said the UK Government made a huge upfront investment in AZ, as part of this preferential deal. This figure turned out to be a paltry £80million. You said the EU invested nothing. Again not true. They actually invested around four times the UK investment. Taking your occupation into account, it seems your view of this is really biased. AZ signed a contract to supply the vaccine to the EU, when the UK contract had been signed. They were aware of the UK commitment, when they signed the EU contract. I dont think that a preferential contract would stand up in court as a reason for not fulfilling another contract. Although AZ are blaming production delays rather than the UK contract. As a naive observer, I just wonder why AZ wouldnt publish a redacted copy of the UK contract, as the EU did. They could prove the UK had a preferential arrangement. You would surely suspect that either UK has not got a preferential arrangement, or that it would make no difference in court. When AZ claimed that their contract with the EU did not allow for them to be supplied by their UK plants, the EU immediately published their contract to prove that this was untrue. The UK Government has remained suspiciously quiet throughout this dispute. AZ do appear to be delivering to the EU at their leisure. You couldnt believe that this dispute related to a life saving product. As far as your explanation of higher prices etc, it is incorrect when you consider what the EU has paid upfront, and the price per dose.
The UK Government's involvement. You are quite right you were not stating this as a fact. You are just making it up. In a frankly desperate attempt to fit your narrative of the EU only tells the truth, and my (and your) country only tells the truth.
I dont believe the EU only tell the truth. I believe the UK Government tells the truth occasionally. I believe that this is clear cut, and have no doubts about the EU case. How can you have doubts? AZ contracted to supply the EU with 270 million doses by the end of this coming quarter. They now say that this total will be 101 million. Production delays? Obviously predictable production delays? End of.
And I am getting really bored with the EU's claim that it has exported X Million doses to the UK. It has not. It has exported 0. Because they are not their vaccines to export.
Then that is exactly the same quantity that the UK has exported to the EU. The figures are correct for EU based companies. Your point is really quite petty
A quick example of how terrible the EU is on the vaccine front. The UK has offered to send millions of vaccines to Ireland. The EU says this cannot happen, as all EU countries must be treated equally. Except Germany, obviously. So EU lives matter less than EU dogma.
Had AZ not welshed on their deal this wouldnt be a problem.
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
The UK contract has not been published. You know, the 1 that says we are a preferential customer. The deal the first gets. At a higher price. And a higher risk. It is not "at their leisure"-it is "best endeavours". Which is most certainly not an unconditional promise.
You are really struggling now. You seem to be disclosing details of a contract that you say hasnt been published. How do you know that the contact says we have a preferential deal? How do you know about the terms and conditions? You havent been reliable on details so far. You said the UK Government made a huge upfront investment in AZ, as part of this preferential deal. This figure turned out to be a paltry £80million. You said the EU invested nothing. Again not true. They actually invested around four times the UK investment. Taking your occupation into account, it seems your view of this is really biased. AZ signed a contract to supply the vaccine to the EU, when the UK contract had been signed. They were aware of the UK commitment, when they signed the EU contract. I dont think that a preferential contract would stand up in court as a reason for not fulfilling another contract. Although AZ are blaming production delays rather than the UK contract. As a naive observer, I just wonder why AZ wouldnt publish a redacted copy of the UK contract, as the EU did. They could prove the UK had a preferential arrangement. You would surely suspect that either UK has not got a preferential arrangement, or that it would make no difference in court. When AZ claimed that their contract with the EU did not allow for them to be supplied by their UK plants, the EU immediately published their contract to prove that this was untrue. The UK Government has remained suspiciously quiet throughout this dispute. AZ do appear to be delivering to the EU at their leisure. You couldnt believe that this dispute related to a life saving product. As far as your explanation of higher prices etc, it is incorrect when you consider what the EU has paid upfront, and the price per dose.
The UK Government's involvement. You are quite right you were not stating this as a fact. You are just making it up. In a frankly desperate attempt to fit your narrative of the EU only tells the truth, and my (and your) country only tells the truth.
I dont believe the EU only tell the truth. I believe the UK Government tells the truth occasionally. I believe that this is clear cut, and have no doubts about the EU case. How can you have doubts? AZ contracted to supply the EU with 270 million doses by the end of this coming quarter. They now say that this total will be 101 million. Production delays? Obviously predictable production delays? End of.
And I am getting really bored with the EU's claim that it has exported X Million doses to the UK. It has not. It has exported 0. Because they are not their vaccines to export.
Then that is exactly the same quantity that the UK has exported to the EU. The figures are correct for EU based companies. Your point is really quite petty
A quick example of how terrible the EU is on the vaccine front. The UK has offered to send millions of vaccines to Ireland. The EU says this cannot happen, as all EU countries must be treated equally. Except Germany, obviously. So EU lives matter less than EU dogma.
Had AZ not welshed on their deal this wouldnt be a problem.
I think you will find that the UK contract was signed the day after the EU contract, and also includes the term "best reasonable efforts".
AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot made the argument that the U.K. had better vaccine supply because the U.K. signed an agreement for vaccines months earlier than the EU. Formally, this isn’t true: The U.K. contract was signed on August 28, while the EU’s was signed a day earlier on August 27.
Like most Lawyers, I have been to Court many, many times.
Like most Lawyers, I have won cases that i should have lost, and vice versa.
There have been some cases where 1 side was lying. But there have been far more where both sides had genuine belief that their version of the truth was the only true version. That is why there are so many cases. Because facts are far more nuanced than you believe.
There is only 1 set of people where my success rate was 100%. People who just concentrated on presenting their version of events. Ignoring the weaknesses in their case-because EVERY case has them. But these people always had an unshakeable belief that there are only 1 set of facts-theirs.
These people hurled insults at the other side. They refused to answer questions designed to point out the weaknesses in their case, because they only wanted to concentrate on what they perceived as strengths. And they lost. Every single time.
I appreciate that you have both previously hurled insults at someone for refusing to answer your questions, while refusing to answer mine. Not a good look. I'd like to give you the chance to answer some. Nice and easy. Yes or no. you know, like last time.
1. Macron has revealed that France and Germany have entered into negotiations to buy vaccine from Russia. Do you believe France and Germany think that the latest promises from the EU about catching up by 30 June is sufficient? Yes/no 2. AZ has been authorised by the UK and EU Medical Agencies. Sputnik has not. Do you believe that Sputnik is statistically safer than AZ? Yes/no 3. Germany still has not completed vaccinating over-70s. Under 55's (other than health workers) is still months away. Do you disagree with the Regulators when they say that the risk of delay far outweighs any possible (as yet unproven) risk of AZ? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is possible that EU politicians are trying to point the finger at AZ to avoid their own people realising how much extra risk delay is causing, and/or the risk they are taking purchasing product not approved by their regulators? Yes/no
Please feel free not to answer. Because your facts are the only facts, right?
Like most Lawyers, I have been to Court many, many times.
Like most Lawyers, I have won cases that i should have lost, and vice versa.
There have been some cases where 1 side was lying. But there have been far more where both sides had genuine belief that their version of the truth was the only true version. That is why there are so many cases. Because facts are far more nuanced than you believe.
There is only 1 set of people where my success rate was 100%. People who just concentrated on presenting their version of events. Ignoring the weaknesses in their case-because EVERY case has them. But these people always had an unshakeable belief that there are only 1 set of facts-theirs.
These people hurled insults at the other side. They refused to answer questions designed to point out the weaknesses in their case, because they only wanted to concentrate on what they perceived as strengths. And they lost. Every single time.
I appreciate that you have both previously hurled insults at someone for refusing to answer your questions, while refusing to answer mine. Not a good look. I'd like to give you the chance to answer some. Nice and easy. Yes or no. you know, like last time.
1. Macron has revealed that France and Germany have entered into negotiations to buy vaccine from Russia. Do you believe France and Germany think that the latest promises from the EU about catching up by 30 June is sufficient? Yes/no 2. AZ has been authorised by the UK and EU Medical Agencies. Sputnik has not. Do you believe that Sputnik is statistically safer than AZ? Yes/no 3. Germany still has not completed vaccinating over-70s. Under 55's (other than health workers) is still months away. Do you disagree with the Regulators when they say that the risk of delay far outweighs any possible (as yet unproven) risk of AZ? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is possible that EU politicians are trying to point the finger at AZ to avoid their own people realising how much extra risk delay is causing, and/or the risk they are taking purchasing product not approved by their regulators? Yes/no
Please feel free not to answer. Because your facts are the only facts, right?
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
The UK contract has not been published. You know, the 1 that says we are a preferential customer. The deal the first gets. At a higher price. And a higher risk. It is not "at their leisure"-it is "best endeavours". Which is most certainly not an unconditional promise.
The UK Government's involvement. You are quite right you were not stating this as a fact. You are just making it up. In a frankly desperate attempt to fit your narrative of the EU only tells the truth, and my (and your) country only tells lies.
And I am getting really bored with the EU's claim that it has exported X Million doses to the UK. It has not. It has exported 0. Because they are not their vaccines to export.
A quick example of how terrible the EU is on the vaccine front. The UK has offered to send millions of vaccines to Ireland. The EU says this cannot happen, as all EU countries must be treated equally. Except Germany, obviously. So EU lives matter less than EU dogma.
AstraZeneca signed vaccine contract with EU at the same time and with the same terms as UK It flies in the face of claims made by the pharmaceutical giant that it had committed to "best effort" terms with the EU at a later date.
Newly-released vaccine contracts show Astrazeneca made the same agreements at the same time with the UK and EU, prompting confusion over comments made by Pascal Soriot in the wake of heated disputes in January.
According to documents obtained by CNN the pharmaceutical giant signed a contract to deliver Covid-19 vaccines with the EU one day prior to the UK and used the same ‘best efforts’ language in the agreements.
In January, amid a bitter row between the EU and AZ over shortfalls in delivery, the firm’s chief executive Sorio said the contract only committed to meet the EU’s demands to its “best effort” and that the EU’s deliveries were delayed in part because the bloc signed its contract later than the UK and therefore EU manufacturing facilities were still catching up.
But that argument has been rubbished after a Freedom of Information request showed the UK signed a contract on the same terms, with newly released documents stating the company only needs to make its “best reasonable efforts” to stick to the original agreed delivery schedule, which it could “update and refine” when necessary.
AstraZeneca declined to comment when asked several questions by CNN about its contract with the UK, how it prioritises different markets with contracts based on “best reasonable efforts” and for details around its supply chains to the UK and EU.
EU and UK spokespeople also refused to elaborate in detail. But David Greene, a senior partner at the law firm Edwin Coe, confirmed that the contracts on both sides were essentially the same in terms of language.
“There are many similarities between these two contracts, including the best reasonable efforts terms. It’s hardly surprising because they were made at the same time,” he said.
He explained that the term “Best Reasonable Efforts” was essentially an escape clause to offer some legal protection to AstraZeneca in the event it could not deliver to its agreed schedule.
“However, what they can’t do, on the face of it, is choose one contracting party over another. So they can’t say to the EU ‘I’m not going to deliver to you because I’m going to deliver to the UK,’ and similar. That’s always been the case.”
Like most Lawyers, I have been to Court many, many times.
Like most Lawyers, I have won cases that i should have lost, and vice versa.
There have been some cases where 1 side was lying. But there have been far more where both sides had genuine belief that their version of the truth was the only true version. That is why there are so many cases. Because facts are far more nuanced than you believe.
There is only 1 set of people where my success rate was 100%. People who just concentrated on presenting their version of events. Ignoring the weaknesses in their case-because EVERY case has them. But these people always had an unshakeable belief that there are only 1 set of facts-theirs.
These people hurled insults at the other side. They refused to answer questions designed to point out the weaknesses in their case, because they only wanted to concentrate on what they perceived as strengths. And they lost. Every single time.
I appreciate that you have both previously hurled insults at someone for refusing to answer your questions, while refusing to answer mine. Not a good look. I'd like to give you the chance to answer some. Nice and easy. Yes or no. you know, like last time.
1. Macron has revealed that France and Germany have entered into negotiations to buy vaccine from Russia. Do you believe France and Germany think that the latest promises from the EU about catching up by 30 June is sufficient? Yes/no 2. AZ has been authorised by the UK and EU Medical Agencies. Sputnik has not. Do you believe that Sputnik is statistically safer than AZ? Yes/no 3. Germany still has not completed vaccinating over-70s. Under 55's (other than health workers) is still months away. Do you disagree with the Regulators when they say that the risk of delay far outweighs any possible (as yet unproven) risk of AZ? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is possible that EU politicians are trying to point the finger at AZ to avoid their own people realising how much extra risk delay is causing, and/or the risk they are taking purchasing product not approved by their regulators? Yes/no
Please feel free not to answer. Because your facts are the only facts, right?
Like most Lawyers, I have been to Court many, many times.
Like most Lawyers, I have won cases that i should have lost, and vice versa.
There have been some cases where 1 side was lying. But there have been far more where both sides had genuine belief that their version of the truth was the only true version. That is why there are so many cases. Because facts are far more nuanced than you believe.
There is only 1 set of people where my success rate was 100%. People who just concentrated on presenting their version of events. Ignoring the weaknesses in their case-because EVERY case has them. But these people always had an unshakeable belief that there are only 1 set of facts-theirs.
These people hurled insults at the other side. They refused to answer questions designed to point out the weaknesses in their case, because they only wanted to concentrate on what they perceived as strengths. And they lost. Every single time.
I appreciate that you have both previously hurled insults at someone for refusing to answer your questions, while refusing to answer mine. Not a good look. I'd like to give you the chance to answer some. Nice and easy. Yes or no. you know, like last time.
1. Macron has revealed that France and Germany have entered into negotiations to buy vaccine from Russia. Do you believe France and Germany think that the latest promises from the EU about catching up by 30 June is sufficient? Yes/no 2. AZ has been authorised by the UK and EU Medical Agencies. Sputnik has not. Do you believe that Sputnik is statistically safer than AZ? Yes/no 3. Germany still has not completed vaccinating over-70s. Under 55's (other than health workers) is still months away. Do you disagree with the Regulators when they say that the risk of delay far outweighs any possible (as yet unproven) risk of AZ? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is possible that EU politicians are trying to point the finger at AZ to avoid their own people realising how much extra risk delay is causing, and/or the risk they are taking purchasing product not approved by their regulators? Yes/no
Please feel free not to answer. Because your facts are the only facts, right?
Did the UK outsmart the EU over AstraZeneca vaccines? Gareth Davies, Professor of EU Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Tue, 30 March 2021, 11:06 am·5-min read
In the “vaccine spat” between the EU and the UK, the common perception is that the UK is winning. The UK health secretary, Matt Hancock, has said this is because his government secured a better contract with vaccine manufacturers, in particular with AstraZeneca, than the EU did.
The EU produces far more vaccines than the UK, but it also exports far more, including to the UK, whereas no vaccines go the other way. In response to this imbalance, which is creating shortages in the EU while the UK is well supplied, the EU has threatened to block exports to countries with higher vaccination rates until its member states catch up.
To date, 80% of the vaccines administered in the UK, 26 million out of the 32 million total, have been imports, of which 5 million came from India, and 21 million, or two-thirds came from the EU.
Put differently: the UK which, based on these figures, would only have been able to vaccinate about 10%-18% of its population if it had to rely on domestic supply, is enjoying a massive vaccine bailout from its European neighbours.
Why would the EU be so generous? Hancock referred to the clauses in the UK’s vaccine supply contracts requiring vaccine producers to supply it preferentially: if there are production shortages, then the UK order must be fulfilled by diverting supplies from other customers. A failure to do so attracts fierce penalties.
As a result, the UK has had its orders fully met, whereas the EU suffered early shortfalls from Pfizer, and is now receiving less than a quarter of what it contracted for from AstraZeneca, which has experienced production problems.
The EU takes the view that if production disappoints, all customers should see a proportional reduction in deliveries. The UK view is that it has a right to preferential supply, because that is what the contract says. The UK government invested in the research, done at the University of Oxford, that powered the AstraZeneca vaccine, and the firm has its headquarters in Cambridge, England.
Which contract to choose? As a matter of law, both the EU and the UK have a case. Both contracts contain a “best reasonable efforts” clause, which is intended to cover the situation where force majeure – a legal term for an event outside one’s control – makes full delivery impossible or unreasonably difficult.
But signing a preferential contract with someone else is not force majeure: it is just selling the same stuff twice. AstraZeneca’s EU obligations are not diminished by its promises to the UK. But if AstraZeneca had distributed the output of its four European plants equally between the EU and UK, as the EU would like, it would be violating the UK contract. It appears to have promised too much to too many people.
The question is why AstraZeneca chose to breach the EU contract rather than the UK one. This will be largely because the UK deal had much harsher penalties – the EU deal has no penalties beyond non-payment and requires informal negotiation rather than litigation when problems arise.
So the UK did not contract better in the sense that it has a right to the vaccines it is obtaining; under the law governing the EU contract it does not. Rather, it seems that the UK contracted better in the sole sense that its contract was more expensive to breach.
That is partly a product of different legal systems and their styles: European contracting parties tend to see contracts as a tool to build up trust and long-term relationships. Anglo-American legal culture tends to see contracts as a way to avoid needing trust at all. Some Europeans seem jealous of this UK fierceness. On the other hand, if everyone did it, it wouldn’t work: grabbing more for yourself can only pay off for a few.
A question of fairness In a situation of global shortage, any vaccine that one country obtains is one that another has lost, which puts a particular responsibility on states with power, money, and vaccine production facilities to consider where doses should go. Should the spoils go to the strongest, or are there issues of fairness?
The US and UK have been consistent and clear in their commitment to helping themselves first. While both have made promises to help others, this will only come after they have met their own needs, and there is no evidence either country has yet exported anything at all.
The EU is probably the third largest producer of vaccines, after the US and China, but has exported 77 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to numerous countries and to Covax, the vaccine scheme for developing countries, to which it is the largest supplier.
The western European vaccine-producing countries have also agreed to supply the rest of their production to the EU as a whole to be made available on a per capita basis to all member states. They are adopting a policy of sharing with non-producing countries globally, and with their neighbours, which of course means less for themselves.
This is seen as utter foolishness, and failure, by the UK government. Its measure of success is how much its gets for people in the UK.
On the other hand, the EU hopes to reach a herd immunity level of vaccination in the summer, probably only a month or two after the UK. It will have done so while showing some sense of global responsibility.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Gareth Davies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Like most Lawyers, I have been to Court many, many times.
Like most Lawyers, I have won cases that i should have lost, and vice versa.
There have been some cases where 1 side was lying. But there have been far more where both sides had genuine belief that their version of the truth was the only true version. That is why there are so many cases. Because facts are far more nuanced than you believe.
There is only 1 set of people where my success rate was 100%. People who just concentrated on presenting their version of events. Ignoring the weaknesses in their case-because EVERY case has them. But these people always had an unshakeable belief that there are only 1 set of facts-theirs.
These people hurled insults at the other side. They refused to answer questions designed to point out the weaknesses in their case, because they only wanted to concentrate on what they perceived as strengths. And they lost. Every single time.
I appreciate that you have both previously hurled insults at someone for refusing to answer your questions, while refusing to answer mine. Not a good look. I'd like to give you the chance to answer some. Nice and easy. Yes or no. you know, like last time.
1. Macron has revealed that France and Germany have entered into negotiations to buy vaccine from Russia. Do you believe France and Germany think that the latest promises from the EU about catching up by 30 June is sufficient? Yes/no 2. AZ has been authorised by the UK and EU Medical Agencies. Sputnik has not. Do you believe that Sputnik is statistically safer than AZ? Yes/no 3. Germany still has not completed vaccinating over-70s. Under 55's (other than health workers) is still months away. Do you disagree with the Regulators when they say that the risk of delay far outweighs any possible (as yet unproven) risk of AZ? Yes/no 4. Do you think it is possible that EU politicians are trying to point the finger at AZ to avoid their own people realising how much extra risk delay is causing, and/or the risk they are taking purchasing product not approved by their regulators? Yes/no
Please feel free not to answer. Because your facts are the only facts, right?
Did the UK outsmart the EU over AstraZeneca vaccines? Gareth Davies, Professor of EU Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Tue, 30 March 2021, 11:06 am·5-min read
In the “vaccine spat” between the EU and the UK, the common perception is that the UK is winning. The UK health secretary, Matt Hancock, has said this is because his government secured a better contract with vaccine manufacturers, in particular with AstraZeneca, than the EU did.
The EU produces far more vaccines than the UK, but it also exports far more, including to the UK, whereas no vaccines go the other way. In response to this imbalance, which is creating shortages in the EU while the UK is well supplied, the EU has threatened to block exports to countries with higher vaccination rates until its member states catch up.
To date, 80% of the vaccines administered in the UK, 26 million out of the 32 million total, have been imports, of which 5 million came from India, and 21 million, or two-thirds came from the EU.
Put differently: the UK which, based on these figures, would only have been able to vaccinate about 10%-18% of its population if it had to rely on domestic supply, is enjoying a massive vaccine bailout from its European neighbours.
Why would the EU be so generous? Hancock referred to the clauses in the UK’s vaccine supply contracts requiring vaccine producers to supply it preferentially: if there are production shortages, then the UK order must be fulfilled by diverting supplies from other customers. A failure to do so attracts fierce penalties.
As a result, the UK has had its orders fully met, whereas the EU suffered early shortfalls from Pfizer, and is now receiving less than a quarter of what it contracted for from AstraZeneca, which has experienced production problems.
The EU takes the view that if production disappoints, all customers should see a proportional reduction in deliveries. The UK view is that it has a right to preferential supply, because that is what the contract says. The UK government invested in the research, done at the University of Oxford, that powered the AstraZeneca vaccine, and the firm has its headquarters in Cambridge, England.
Which contract to choose? As a matter of law, both the EU and the UK have a case. Both contracts contain a “best reasonable efforts” clause, which is intended to cover the situation where force majeure – a legal term for an event outside one’s control – makes full delivery impossible or unreasonably difficult.
But signing a preferential contract with someone else is not force majeure: it is just selling the same stuff twice. AstraZeneca’s EU obligations are not diminished by its promises to the UK. But if AstraZeneca had distributed the output of its four European plants equally between the EU and UK, as the EU would like, it would be violating the UK contract. It appears to have promised too much to too many people.
The question is why AstraZeneca chose to breach the EU contract rather than the UK one. This will be largely because the UK deal had much harsher penalties – the EU deal has no penalties beyond non-payment and requires informal negotiation rather than litigation when problems arise.
So the UK did not contract better in the sense that it has a right to the vaccines it is obtaining; under the law governing the EU contract it does not. Rather, it seems that the UK contracted better in the sole sense that its contract was more expensive to breach.
That is partly a product of different legal systems and their styles: European contracting parties tend to see contracts as a tool to build up trust and long-term relationships. Anglo-American legal culture tends to see contracts as a way to avoid needing trust at all. Some Europeans seem jealous of this UK fierceness. On the other hand, if everyone did it, it wouldn’t work: grabbing more for yourself can only pay off for a few.
A question of fairness In a situation of global shortage, any vaccine that one country obtains is one that another has lost, which puts a particular responsibility on states with power, money, and vaccine production facilities to consider where doses should go. Should the spoils go to the strongest, or are there issues of fairness?
The US and UK have been consistent and clear in their commitment to helping themselves first. While both have made promises to help others, this will only come after they have met their own needs, and there is no evidence either country has yet exported anything at all.
The EU is probably the third largest producer of vaccines, after the US and China, but has exported 77 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to numerous countries and to Covax, the vaccine scheme for developing countries, to which it is the largest supplier.
The western European vaccine-producing countries have also agreed to supply the rest of their production to the EU as a whole to be made available on a per capita basis to all member states. They are adopting a policy of sharing with non-producing countries globally, and with their neighbours, which of course means less for themselves.
This is seen as utter foolishness, and failure, by the UK government. Its measure of success is how much its gets for people in the UK.
On the other hand, the EU hopes to reach a herd immunity level of vaccination in the summer, probably only a month or two after the UK. It will have done so while showing some sense of global responsibility.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Gareth Davies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
You seriously believe that a press release saying they are going to catch up in the next 3 months means they are currently ahead?
Dearie me.
I have to laugh. They have increased their target for the year. They are delivering 10 million doses early.
Oh and what are AZ doing? They are going to be another 110 million doses short to the EU, in the next quarter.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. You have never done accounts, have you?
You believe the EU when they say they are not behind. While 4 times as many UK and 3 times as many US citizens have been vaccinated. Even including all the EU members who have been begging vaccine off Russia, China and Israel.
You believe that AZ are behind, whereas Pfizer's vaccine is magically coming from planned future orders. Not the untold millions they are already behind. You actually believe that guff about 10 million "early" doses?
You believe that 110 million figure is using the same data as the Pfizer. Whereas, in the real world, that 110 million has been counted before. Unlike the Pfizer shortfalls. which, apparently, don't exist.
Politicians play politics. This is the EU pretending that all is right in their world. When it just isn't true. Because politicians routinely twist facts to suit themselves.
I am not doing another list of stuff that you have posted that is untrue.
Comments
The UK Government's involvement. You are quite right you were not stating this as a fact. You are just making it up. In a frankly desperate attempt to fit your narrative of the EU only tells the truth, and my (and your) country only tells lies.
And I am getting really bored with the EU's claim that it has exported X Million doses to the UK. It has not. It has exported 0. Because they are not their vaccines to export.
A quick example of how terrible the EU is on the vaccine front. The UK has offered to send millions of vaccines to Ireland. The EU says this cannot happen, as all EU countries must be treated equally. Except Germany, obviously. So EU lives matter less than EU dogma.
Do you mean Pfizer in America? They are ahead.
But not BionTech. And not Pfizer in Europe. Fact.
EU on course to reach vaccine target with accelerated Pfizer deliveries
The European Commission expects to receive more than 200 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech in the second quarter, it said on Tuesday, putting the European Union on course to meet its inoculation target.
The EU aims to vaccinate at least 255 million people, or 70 per cent of its adult population, by the end of the summer.
It has faced criticism of a slow rollout amid supply delays from some drugmakers, hiccups in vaccination plans and the suspension of inoculations using the AstraZeneca vaccine due to potential health issues.
The new expected deliveries from Pfizer include 10 million doses originally expected in the third and fourth quarters, the Commission said.
"These accelerated 10 million doses will bring the total doses of BioNTech-Pfizer in quarter two up to over 200 million," EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, revealing for the first time the volume of doses expected from Pfizer in the April-June quarter.
AstraZeneca last week announced it aimed to deliver to the 27-nation bloc 70 million doses in the second quarter from its original contractual obligation of 180 million.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/covid-vaccine/eu-on-course-to-reach-vaccine-targets-with-accelerated-pfizer-deliveries-1096902.html
BioNTech Raises 2021 Covid Vaccine Target to 2.5 Billion ...
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/...
16 hours ago · BioNTech SE and Pfizer Inc. raised this year’s production target for their Covid-19 vaccine to as many as 2.5 billion doses, with the German biotech’s chief executive predicting a version of ...
BioNTech-Pfizer raise 2021 vaccine output goal to 2.5 billion ...
www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus...
BioNTech said on Tuesday that it and partner Pfizer would increase manufacturing capacity of their COVID-19 vaccine to 2.5 billion doses by the end of 2021, unveiling for the first time projected ...
EU on course to reach vaccine target with accelerated Pfizer ...
www.breakingnews.ie/covid-vaccine/eu-on-course...
16/03/2021 · The European Commission expects to receive more than 200 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech in the second quarter, it said on Tuesday, putting the European Union on course...
BioNTech raises 2021 Pfizer COVID vaccine target to 2.5bn ...
www.thecable.ng/biontech-raises-2021-pfizer...
16 hours ago · BioNTech raises 2021 Pfizer COVID vaccine target to 2.5bn doses BioNTech, a German biotech company, says it will produce 2.5 billion doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in 2021.Advertisement The ...
Pfizer and BioNTech to accelerate deliveries of Covid-19 ...
www.sharecast.com/news/international-companies/...
Pfizer and BioNTech will bring forward some deliveries of their Covid-19 vaccine to the European Union to the ... they materialised would nevertheless push the bloc well above the 300m dose target.
Author: Alexander Bueso
Dearie me.
They have increased their target for the year.
They are delivering 10 million doses early.
Oh and what are AZ doing?
They are going to be another 110 million doses short to the EU, in the next quarter.
You believe the EU when they say they are not behind. While 4 times as many UK and 3 times as many US citizens have been vaccinated. Even including all the EU members who have been begging vaccine off Russia, China and Israel.
You believe that AZ are behind, whereas Pfizer's vaccine is magically coming from planned future orders. Not the untold millions they are already behind. You actually believe that guff about 10 million "early" doses?
You believe that 110 million figure is using the same data as the Pfizer. Whereas, in the real world, that 110 million has been counted before. Unlike the Pfizer shortfalls. which, apparently, don't exist.
Politicians play politics. This is the EU pretending that all is right in their world. When it just isn't true. Because politicians routinely twist facts to suit themselves.
…
International Economics Professor Keith Pilbeam at City University in London warned the Digital Service Tax introduced last April could threaten an American post-Brexit trade deal as the US feels the tax unfairly targets them. The US dislikes the 2 percent revenue tax on digital companies as many operate in North America, with President Joe Biden threatening to slap down a sharp 25 percent tariff on some British goods in response. The UK says it wants digital firms to pay their "fair share of tax" but the US disagrees and says the tax is discriminatory towards American businesses.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/post-brexit-us-trade-deal-in-jeopardy-as-joe-biden-furious-at-london-s-tech-tax-crackdown/ar-BB1f8c4l?ocid=msedgntp
On Tuesday, Germany became the latest in a growing list of countries, including Canada and France, to suspend use of the vaccine in younger age groups. In Germany the cut off is 60, while in Canada and France only those age 55 and above are now receiving the jab.
Unfortunately, the issue is no longer political and is unlikely to be batted away as such.
Germany's medical regulator announced on Tuesday it had received a total of 31 reports of rare blood clots in recent recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Nine died and all but two of the cases involved women aged 20 to 63, the Paul Ehrlich Institute said.
The problem now is that more data is flowing in.
On Tuesday, a team of European researchers published a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint which looked at nine patients in Germany and Austria who developed thrombocytopenia and clots following vaccination.
“The AZD1222 vaccine is associated with development of a prothrombotic disorder that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia but which shows a different serological profile”, they said.
Not surprisingly, regulators in the UK, Europe and North America are now all racing to better understand if an association between the jab and the condition really exists and, if so, at what rate it occurs.
It is this second part of the puzzle which will prove crucial as all medicines carry some risk. The real question is whether or not the benefits will continue to outweigh the risks.
“The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several”, Sandra Ciesek, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfur told Science magazine this week. “So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
That is essentially the call Germany, France and Canada have made this week but it may not be as easy for the UK which is more reliant on the AstraZenica jab, for the moment at least.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/britain-could-be-in-for-a-rough-ride-with-the-oxford-astrazeneca-jab-but-there-s-no-need-to-panic/ar-BB1f8rFB?ocid=msedgntp
I find it incredible that you are unable to understand why AZ is being criticised.
And even more incredible that you cant see that this criticism is fully justified.
Ursula von der Leyen
@vonderleyen
·
16 Mar
We agreed with
@BioNTech_Group
@pfizer
on an accelerated delivery of 10 million doses for quarter 2.
This will bring the total deliveries of this vaccine to 200 million doses for that quarter.
It will give Member States room to manoeuvre and possibly fill gaps in deliveries.
Classic example of how "facts" can be used in a biased way.
I have posted facts.
I have also posted articles that include opinions.
I have not misrepresented opinions as facts.
I dont understand how facts can be used in a biased way, as they after all facts.
You, on the other hand are posting many of your own opinions, and expect me to accept them, sometimes when they are in contradiction to the facts.
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.
How about these for facts.
AZ were short of around 60 million doses for the EU in the first quarter.
They plan to be a further 110 million short in the second quarter.
This means that it will take another 3 months to deliver a little more than the number they should have delivered in quarter 1.
A total of 101 million doses, when they contracted to supply 270 million.
The shortfall has been caused by production delays.
Yet they are still managing to meet the UKs requirement of 2 million per week.
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,
The Pfizer BioNTech delivery dates have been brought forward, and their annual target increased.
I have not seen any complaints from the EU or UK.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Pfizer have some expertise in vaccines.
On the other hand, AZ have had no previous experience with vaccines, and isnt that obvious.
"if you looked on an organisational chart of BionTech, the box labelled vaccine management would have nothing in it."
Maybe Pfizer add content to this particular box.
If AZ was German (or American), do you think the EU would be attacking it in this way? No.
Is that relevant.
I find it incredible that you are unable to understand why AZ is being criticised.
And even more incredible that you cant see that this criticism is fully justified.
Ursula von der Leyen
@vonderleyen
·
16 Mar
We agreed with
@BioNTech_Group
@pfizer
on an accelerated delivery of 10 million doses for quarter 2.
This will bring the total deliveries of this vaccine to 200 million doses for that quarter.
It will give Member States room to manoeuvre and possibly fill gaps in deliveries.
AstraZeneca does not and has never had much experience with vaccines. Their strength is in treating cancer.
So when Covid hit, AstraZeneca was not necessarily the company many thought would lead the charge.
Since then, AstraZeneca has had a fraught relationship with regulators and politicians; its name has been unfairly but undoubtedly caught up in recriminations over a slow vaccine rollout in the EU; and the share price is 20% lower than it was last summer when the news flow seemed so positive.
So, if that's the case, is it not naïve at best and misleading at worst, to promise to deliver a fixed quantity of a potentially life or death product?
This is where Astra's lack of experience in vaccines really tripped it up - managing expectations through simple and effective communication.
In the US, Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), accused AstraZeneca of "unforced errors", in failing to include the most recent data in its trial submissions to US authorities.
Even insiders admit: "It's fair to say we are in a pretty uncomfortable spot right now."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56570364
AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot made the argument that the U.K. had better vaccine supply because the U.K. signed an agreement for vaccines months earlier than the EU. Formally, this isn’t true: The U.K. contract was signed on August 28, while the EU’s was signed a day earlier on August 27.
Like most Lawyers, I have won cases that i should have lost, and vice versa.
There have been some cases where 1 side was lying. But there have been far more where both sides had genuine belief that their version of the truth was the only true version. That is why there are so many cases. Because facts are far more nuanced than you believe.
There is only 1 set of people where my success rate was 100%. People who just concentrated on presenting their version of events. Ignoring the weaknesses in their case-because EVERY case has them. But these people always had an unshakeable belief that there are only 1 set of facts-theirs.
These people hurled insults at the other side. They refused to answer questions designed to point out the weaknesses in their case, because they only wanted to concentrate on what they perceived as strengths. And they lost. Every single time.
I appreciate that you have both previously hurled insults at someone for refusing to answer your questions, while refusing to answer mine. Not a good look. I'd like to give you the chance to answer some. Nice and easy. Yes or no. you know, like last time.
1. Macron has revealed that France and Germany have entered into negotiations to buy vaccine from Russia. Do you believe France and Germany think that the latest promises from the EU about catching up by 30 June is sufficient? Yes/no
2. AZ has been authorised by the UK and EU Medical Agencies. Sputnik has not. Do you believe that Sputnik is statistically safer than AZ? Yes/no
3. Germany still has not completed vaccinating over-70s. Under 55's (other than health workers) is still months away. Do you disagree with the Regulators when they say that the risk of delay far outweighs any possible (as yet unproven) risk of AZ? Yes/no
4. Do you think it is possible that EU politicians are trying to point the finger at AZ to avoid their own people realising how much extra risk delay is causing, and/or the risk they are taking purchasing product not approved by their regulators? Yes/no
Please feel free not to answer. Because your facts are the only facts, right?
Good luck with that...
It flies in the face of claims made by the pharmaceutical giant that it had committed to "best effort" terms with the EU at a later date.
Newly-released vaccine contracts show Astrazeneca made the same agreements at the same time with the UK and EU, prompting confusion over comments made by Pascal Soriot in the wake of heated disputes in January.
According to documents obtained by CNN the pharmaceutical giant signed a contract to deliver Covid-19 vaccines with the EU one day prior to the UK and used the same ‘best efforts’ language in the agreements.
In January, amid a bitter row between the EU and AZ over shortfalls in delivery, the firm’s chief executive Sorio said the contract only committed to meet the EU’s demands to its “best effort” and that the EU’s deliveries were delayed in part because the bloc signed its contract later than the UK and therefore EU manufacturing facilities were still catching up.
But that argument has been rubbished after a Freedom of Information request showed the UK signed a contract on the same terms, with newly released documents stating the company only needs to make its “best reasonable efforts” to stick to the original agreed delivery schedule, which it could “update and refine” when necessary.
AstraZeneca declined to comment when asked several questions by CNN about its contract with the UK, how it prioritises different markets with contracts based on “best reasonable efforts” and for details around its supply chains to the UK and EU.
EU and UK spokespeople also refused to elaborate in detail. But David Greene, a senior partner at the law firm Edwin Coe, confirmed that the contracts on both sides were essentially the same in terms of language.
“There are many similarities between these two contracts, including the best reasonable efforts terms. It’s hardly surprising because they were made at the same time,” he said.
He explained that the term “Best Reasonable Efforts” was essentially an escape clause to offer some legal protection to AstraZeneca in the event it could not deliver to its agreed schedule.
“However, what they can’t do, on the face of it, is choose one contracting party over another. So they can’t say to the EU ‘I’m not going to deliver to you because I’m going to deliver to the UK,’ and similar. That’s always been the case.”
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/astrazeneca-signed-vaccine-contract-with-eu-at-the-same-time-and-with-the-same-terms-as-uk-221293/
Gareth Davies, Professor of EU Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Tue, 30 March 2021, 11:06 am·5-min read
In the “vaccine spat” between the EU and the UK, the common perception is that the UK is winning. The UK health secretary, Matt Hancock, has said this is because his government secured a better contract with vaccine manufacturers, in particular with AstraZeneca, than the EU did.
The EU produces far more vaccines than the UK, but it also exports far more, including to the UK, whereas no vaccines go the other way. In response to this imbalance, which is creating shortages in the EU while the UK is well supplied, the EU has threatened to block exports to countries with higher vaccination rates until its member states catch up.
To date, 80% of the vaccines administered in the UK, 26 million out of the 32 million total, have been imports, of which 5 million came from India, and 21 million, or two-thirds came from the EU.
Put differently: the UK which, based on these figures, would only have been able to vaccinate about 10%-18% of its population if it had to rely on domestic supply, is enjoying a massive vaccine bailout from its European neighbours.
Why would the EU be so generous? Hancock referred to the clauses in the UK’s vaccine supply contracts requiring vaccine producers to supply it preferentially: if there are production shortages, then the UK order must be fulfilled by diverting supplies from other customers. A failure to do so attracts fierce penalties.
As a result, the UK has had its orders fully met, whereas the EU suffered early shortfalls from Pfizer, and is now receiving less than a quarter of what it contracted for from AstraZeneca, which has experienced production problems.
The EU takes the view that if production disappoints, all customers should see a proportional reduction in deliveries. The UK view is that it has a right to preferential supply, because that is what the contract says. The UK government invested in the research, done at the University of Oxford, that powered the AstraZeneca vaccine, and the firm has its headquarters in Cambridge, England.
Which contract to choose?
As a matter of law, both the EU and the UK have a case. Both contracts contain a “best reasonable efforts” clause, which is intended to cover the situation where force majeure – a legal term for an event outside one’s control – makes full delivery impossible or unreasonably difficult.
But signing a preferential contract with someone else is not force majeure: it is just selling the same stuff twice. AstraZeneca’s EU obligations are not diminished by its promises to the UK. But if AstraZeneca had distributed the output of its four European plants equally between the EU and UK, as the EU would like, it would be violating the UK contract. It appears to have promised too much to too many people.
The question is why AstraZeneca chose to breach the EU contract rather than the UK one. This will be largely because the UK deal had much harsher penalties – the EU deal has no penalties beyond non-payment and requires informal negotiation rather than litigation when problems arise.
So the UK did not contract better in the sense that it has a right to the vaccines it is obtaining; under the law governing the EU contract it does not. Rather, it seems that the UK contracted better in the sole sense that its contract was more expensive to breach.
That is partly a product of different legal systems and their styles: European contracting parties tend to see contracts as a tool to build up trust and long-term relationships. Anglo-American legal culture tends to see contracts as a way to avoid needing trust at all. Some Europeans seem jealous of this UK fierceness. On the other hand, if everyone did it, it wouldn’t work: grabbing more for yourself can only pay off for a few.
A question of fairness
In a situation of global shortage, any vaccine that one country obtains is one that another has lost, which puts a particular responsibility on states with power, money, and vaccine production facilities to consider where doses should go. Should the spoils go to the strongest, or are there issues of fairness?
The US and UK have been consistent and clear in their commitment to helping themselves first. While both have made promises to help others, this will only come after they have met their own needs, and there is no evidence either country has yet exported anything at all.
The EU is probably the third largest producer of vaccines, after the US and China, but has exported 77 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to numerous countries and to Covax, the vaccine scheme for developing countries, to which it is the largest supplier.
The western European vaccine-producing countries have also agreed to supply the rest of their production to the EU as a whole to be made available on a per capita basis to all member states. They are adopting a policy of sharing with non-producing countries globally, and with their neighbours, which of course means less for themselves.
This is seen as utter foolishness, and failure, by the UK government. Its measure of success is how much its gets for people in the UK.
On the other hand, the EU hopes to reach a herd immunity level of vaccination in the summer, probably only a month or two after the UK. It will have done so while showing some sense of global responsibility.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Gareth Davies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/did-uk-outsmart-eu-over-100640074.html
With a name like that he is probably Welsh, which explains a lot.