Seems like AstraZeneca might prove to be a rather surprising Brexit benefit in relation to vaccines.
Breathtaking arrogance from the EU. I take their point about Astra breaking their contract, but fail to see why this should mean that they put pressure on to take vaccines already contracted to the UK, and made in the UK.
Thats one way of looking at it.
The EU ordered the vaccine last August. Astra Zeneca signed a contract to supply 80 million doses before the end of March. This total is now expected to be 31 million. Yet the supply to the UK, seems unaffected. The EU contract is with Astra Zeneca, rather than any particular plant, or plants. A contract signed later, surely has no less legal weight than one signed slightly earlier? The EU hasnt interrupted the Pfizer supply to the UK. This is despite the fact that they have ordered 600 million Pfizer doses and the factory supplying the UK is in Belgium. The argument being put forward to justify the priority being given to the British supply appears to be that the contract was signed earlier, and the plants supplying the UK, are in the UK. Whether or not we were EU members has no bearing on this dispute. To put this in perspective the UK has enough vaccine ordered to vaccinate the whole UK population more than five times.
But EU Commission officials said on Wednesday that the contract stipulated that the company had also committed to providing vaccines from two factories in Britain. They added the firm had not provided sufficient explanations on why doses could not be shipped from stocks at fully functioning factories.
Reuters on Tuesday exclusively reported that EU’s calls to reroute doses from Britain had not been answered by AstraZeneca.
AstraZeneca said on Wednesday that supply chains were developed with input from specific countries or international organisations and that each supply chain was dedicated to the relevant countries or regions, making use of local manufacturing where possible.
European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen earlier told forum: "Europe invested billions to help develop the world's first Covid-19 vaccines. And now, the companies must deliver. They must honour their obligations."
The bloc signed a deal in August for 300 million doses, with an option for 100 million more. The EU had hoped that, as soon as approval was given, delivery would start straight away, with some 80 million doses arriving in the 27 nations by March.
In a nutshell, here is why EU officials are furious with AstraZeneca. They say the contract between them and the pharmaceutical giant clearly stipulates that the two main vaccine production factories in the UK are to be classed as primary manufacturing sites, and the production sites in Belgium and the Netherlands are secondary priorities.
The vaccine production issues are in Belgium and the Netherlands (they have been producing lower yields). So, this is a no-brainer to EU officials - the UK sites should be used to transport the vaccines across the continent.
And today's impromptu news conference by the EU's Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides shows that any tolerance of the company's previous explanations has worn thin.
In fact, EU officials point out to me that EU money went into upgrading the facilities in the UK and that they fully expected it to be operational for them. This has turned into a deeply unpleasant row, and sets the stage for a difficult meeting with the UK-Swedish company.
You have answered your own questions. You just don't realise it.
You are right to say an earlier contract doesn't oust a later one. That is not the problem. AstraZeneca are an Anglo-Swedish company. That is a country not in the EU, and one right on the geographical (and logistical) edge, whose population is less than 2% of the EU.
What Astra are NOT saying, because of the political sensitivities, is precisely what you have posted a gazillion times. There are considerable logistical problems trading between the UK (or, more accurately, GB) and the EU.
Insurmountable? Of course not. But they cost time and money. Astra cannot fulfil all their orders. So they are concentrating on the ones that make them the most profit. Like anyone would.
Note that it is not Pfizer that are trying to redress any imbalance. It is the EU. Insisting Pfizer break their contracts with us. Abusing a dominant market position. With (presumably) Pfizer's money.
You have answered your own questions. You just don't realise it.
You are right to say an earlier contract doesn't oust a later one. That is not the problem. AstraZeneca are an Anglo-Swedish company. That is a country not in the EU, and one right on the geographical (and logistical) edge, whose population is less than 2% of the EU.
AZ signed both contracts. The EU are complaining about their shortfall, while the UK remains unaffected.
What Astra are NOT saying, because of the political sensitivities, is precisely what you have posted a gazillion times. There are considerable logistical problems trading between the UK (or, more accurately, GB) and the EU.
No they arent. They are saying that the UK is being supplied by UK factories which are meeting targets, and that the EU somehow has to be supplied by European factories, which arent. This is despite the EU contributing financially towards the upgrading of UK facilities.
Insurmountable? Of course not. But they cost time and money. Astra cannot fulfil all their orders. So they are concentrating on the ones that make them the most profit. Like anyone would.
You would think they would fulfil all their contracts on a pro rata basis. AZ are not profiting from the vaccine during the pandemic.
Note that it is not Pfizer that are trying to redress any imbalance. It is the EU. Insisting Pfizer break their contracts with us. Abusing a dominant market position. With (presumably) Pfizer's money.
No they havent. Although they have put forward the same argument as the UK government has put forward in regard to the AZ vaccine.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
Thats correct, but I am able to read the papers.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
AZ are meant to be supplying them at cost during the pandemic, with a view to increasing the prices and profiting later from countries that can afford it. The prices do seem to me to back this up. Maybe you and your 30 years experience would make you disagree? This is the list of what the EU is paying:
The UK is believed to have spent between £24 and £28 per dose on the Moderna jab, the Daily Mail reports. The domestically produced Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine cost the government around £3 per jab, according to the BBC, while the Pfizer/BioNTech jab has a price tag of around £15. Meanwhile, Belgium’s Budget State Secretary Eva De Bleeker gave an insight into what the EU is paying when she accidentally tweeted a table last month that showed the price of each jab. The now-deleted tweet revealed that the EU is handing over €1.78 (£1.59) for each dose of the Oxford vaccine and €12 (£10.60) for the Pfizer version.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
The vaccine prices reflect a discount in respect of an upfront investment. It appears that the EU are purchasing the Pfizer, and the AZ vaccines substantially cheaper than the UK. AZ have two factories in the UK, and two in Europe.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
The prices dont seem to reflect this.
This dispute clearly surrounds the fact that while AZ has warned the EU that they will be woefully short of the promised doses, while they are maintaining the agreed 2 million per week for the UK. They seem to be trying to justify this by pointing out that the UKs contract was signed earlier, and that the UK supply is manufactured in the UK. Neither of which are being accepted by the EU.
Samantha Cameron blasts 'sexist' abuse levelled at Carrie Symonds over 'Princess Nut Nut' nickname and slams 'frustrating' new Brexit rules that have impacted her own fashion business
Samantha Cameron said the criticism Carrie Symonds received last year was 'harsh'. Miss Symonds was reportedly nicknamed 'Princess Nut Nut' by opponents in No 10.
Nicola Sturgeon is accused of taking the EU's side and risking vaccine rollout as she vows to publish details of UK's supplies despite Boris Johnson ordering her to keep them secret - as Brussels claims AstraZeneca is giving Britain too much
In an extraordinary move, Nicola Sturgeon risked undermining Britain's position, with Brussels heaping pressure on firms to give the bloc a bigger share of the stocks. Despite the PM warning that the information must be confidential to protect the rollout, Ms Sturgeon told Holyrood she will release it from next week 'regardless of what they say'. Tory MPs vented fury at Ms Sturgeon - who wants Scotland to go independent and rejoin the bloc - over the intervention, saying she is 'obviously more inclined to help the EU than she is the UK'. The row erupted as tensions between the EU and UK over vaccine supplies escalated again, with MEPs threatening 'trade war'. There are claims officials have been sent from the medicines agency to the AstraZeneca plant in Belgium to check it genuinely has problems producing doses. It comes as the bloc tries to turn the screw on the UK-based pharma giant to bail out its shambolic vaccine rollout. European politicians warned the 'consequences' of refusing to divert stocks of the UK-made jabs to EU would be a ban on exports of the Pfizer version from Belgium - suggesting 3.5million doses due to arrive soon could be at risk. EU chiefs want more of the Oxford jabs - made in Staffordshire and Oxfordshire - be handed over to make up for a 75million shortfall on the continent.
Germany says AstraZeneca jab should not be used on over-65s due to 'insufficient testing data' following outcry over claims it only has 8% efficacy in old people
A day before EU regulators are expected to approve the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab, a German commission said there was 'insufficient data to assess the efficacy of the vaccine for persons aged 65 years and older'. British regulators, by contrast, have approved the jab for all age groups - with AstraZeneca pointing to data published in a medical journal showing that 100 per cent of older adults generated antibodies in trials. Germany's decision comes amid an angry row between the EU and AstraZeneca over vaccine supplies, with the bloc lagging far behind Britain in immunising its population against Covid-19 (pictured left, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen; top right, one of AstraZeneca's UK plants; bottom right: an elderly patient receiving a Covid jab).
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
Thats correct, but I am able to read the papers.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
AZ are meant to be supplying them at cost during the pandemic, with a view to increasing the prices and profiting later from countries that can afford it. The prices do seem to me to back this up. Maybe you and your 30 years experience would make you disagree? This is the list of what the EU is paying:
The UK is believed to have spent between £24 and £28 per dose on the Moderna jab, the Daily Mail reports. The domestically produced Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine cost the government around £3 per jab, according to the BBC, while the Pfizer/BioNTech jab has a price tag of around £15. Meanwhile, Belgium’s Budget State Secretary Eva De Bleeker gave an insight into what the EU is paying when she accidentally tweeted a table last month that showed the price of each jab. The now-deleted tweet revealed that the EU is handing over €1.78 (£1.59) for each dose of the Oxford vaccine and €12 (£10.60) for the Pfizer version.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
The vaccine prices reflect a discount in respect of an upfront investment. It appears that the EU are purchasing the Pfizer, and the AZ vaccines substantially cheaper than the UK. AZ have two factories in the UK, and two in Europe.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
The prices dont seem to reflect this.
This dispute clearly surrounds the fact that while AZ has warned the EU that they will be woefully short of the promised doses, while they are maintaining the agreed 2 million per week for the UK. They seem to be trying to justify this by pointing out that the UKs contract was signed earlier, and that the UK supply is manufactured in the UK. Neither of which are being accepted by the EU.
Nothing at all to do with EU membership.
In order to reassure the public, individual units are sold without significant profit (although I note that the EU are paying just over half what we are). But that ignores the £millions given up-front. The UK alone freely admits that it has given AstraZeneca £300 million up-front. Then there will be the office space, the Oxford Uni input, and so on.
There are loads of different ways to make a profit. My favourite one was a "not for profit" charity many years ago. It never made a profit, but its founding directors paid themselves £millions every year as "salary".
These are fixed prices per unit-so cost of production is going to be a factor.
Gives them justification to scale down their Astrazeneca order (you know, the 1 that was never going to arrive) and save face. With a rather pathetic scientific so-called "reason."
This has a lot to do with Brexit. It serves to show that it is bad for Europe, as well as bad for us.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
Thats correct, but I am able to read the papers.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
AZ are meant to be supplying them at cost during the pandemic, with a view to increasing the prices and profiting later from countries that can afford it. The prices do seem to me to back this up. Maybe you and your 30 years experience would make you disagree? This is the list of what the EU is paying:
The UK is believed to have spent between £24 and £28 per dose on the Moderna jab, the Daily Mail reports. The domestically produced Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine cost the government around £3 per jab, according to the BBC, while the Pfizer/BioNTech jab has a price tag of around £15. Meanwhile, Belgium’s Budget State Secretary Eva De Bleeker gave an insight into what the EU is paying when she accidentally tweeted a table last month that showed the price of each jab. The now-deleted tweet revealed that the EU is handing over €1.78 (£1.59) for each dose of the Oxford vaccine and €12 (£10.60) for the Pfizer version.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
The vaccine prices reflect a discount in respect of an upfront investment. It appears that the EU are purchasing the Pfizer, and the AZ vaccines substantially cheaper than the UK. AZ have two factories in the UK, and two in Europe.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
The prices dont seem to reflect this.
This dispute clearly surrounds the fact that while AZ has warned the EU that they will be woefully short of the promised doses, while they are maintaining the agreed 2 million per week for the UK. They seem to be trying to justify this by pointing out that the UKs contract was signed earlier, and that the UK supply is manufactured in the UK. Neither of which are being accepted by the EU.
Nothing at all to do with EU membership.
In order to reassure the public, individual units are sold without significant profit (although I note that the EU are paying just over half what we are). But that ignores the £millions given up-front. The UK alone freely admits that it has given AstraZeneca £300 million up-front. Then there will be the office space, the Oxford Uni input, and so on.
There are loads of different ways to make a profit. My favourite one was a "not for profit" charity many years ago. It never made a profit, but its founding directors paid themselves £millions every year as "salary".
These are fixed prices per unit-so cost of production is going to be a factor.
Feel free to keep believing the papers.
Many of the papers are reporting the story in exactly the same way.
You clearly stated earlier that the UK would have a better deal than the EU on AZ vaccine.
Not the case.
AZ could surely have charged a much higher price, when compared to the other suppliers.
Gives them justification to scale down their Astrazeneca order (you know, the 1 that was never going to arrive) and save face. With a rather pathetic scientific so-called "reason."
This has a lot to do with Brexit. It serves to show that it is bad for Europe, as well as bad for us.
Germany seem to be basing this on the trials.
What they have said is that because only 8% of the guinea pigs were aged 56 to 69, and 4% were over 70, it is not a big enough sample.
I know the same amount about vaccine testing as I do about international contracts, but those figures dont seem to be particularly high.
The expert on Sky News said the German organisation is very much respected throughout the world, and should be taken seriously.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
Thats correct, but I am able to read the papers.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
AZ are meant to be supplying them at cost during the pandemic, with a view to increasing the prices and profiting later from countries that can afford it. The prices do seem to me to back this up. Maybe you and your 30 years experience would make you disagree? This is the list of what the EU is paying:
The UK is believed to have spent between £24 and £28 per dose on the Moderna jab, the Daily Mail reports. The domestically produced Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine cost the government around £3 per jab, according to the BBC, while the Pfizer/BioNTech jab has a price tag of around £15. Meanwhile, Belgium’s Budget State Secretary Eva De Bleeker gave an insight into what the EU is paying when she accidentally tweeted a table last month that showed the price of each jab. The now-deleted tweet revealed that the EU is handing over €1.78 (£1.59) for each dose of the Oxford vaccine and €12 (£10.60) for the Pfizer version.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
The vaccine prices reflect a discount in respect of an upfront investment. It appears that the EU are purchasing the Pfizer, and the AZ vaccines substantially cheaper than the UK. AZ have two factories in the UK, and two in Europe.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
The prices dont seem to reflect this.
This dispute clearly surrounds the fact that while AZ has warned the EU that they will be woefully short of the promised doses, while they are maintaining the agreed 2 million per week for the UK. They seem to be trying to justify this by pointing out that the UKs contract was signed earlier, and that the UK supply is manufactured in the UK. Neither of which are being accepted by the EU.
Nothing at all to do with EU membership.
In order to reassure the public, individual units are sold without significant profit (although I note that the EU are paying just over half what we are). But that ignores the £millions given up-front. The UK alone freely admits that it has given AstraZeneca £300 million up-front. Then there will be the office space, the Oxford Uni input, and so on.
There are loads of different ways to make a profit. My favourite one was a "not for profit" charity many years ago. It never made a profit, but its founding directors paid themselves £millions every year as "salary".
These are fixed prices per unit-so cost of production is going to be a factor.
Feel free to keep believing the papers.
Phil you are starting to remind me of Boris, you are waffling on at a tangent.
The UK are paying between £24 and £28 for the Moderna jab.
They are paying £3 for the AZ jab, and the EU is paying less than £2.
I dont think they have priced it up to make huge profits.
Pfizer was also given money upfront, but are still charging £10, or £15 per jab depending on whether you are in the UK, or EU.
I don't mean to be rude, Haysie. But 1 of us has 30 years' experience of international supply contracts. and it's not you.
Thats correct, but I am able to read the papers.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
AZ are meant to be supplying them at cost during the pandemic, with a view to increasing the prices and profiting later from countries that can afford it. The prices do seem to me to back this up. Maybe you and your 30 years experience would make you disagree? This is the list of what the EU is paying:
The UK is believed to have spent between £24 and £28 per dose on the Moderna jab, the Daily Mail reports. The domestically produced Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine cost the government around £3 per jab, according to the BBC, while the Pfizer/BioNTech jab has a price tag of around £15. Meanwhile, Belgium’s Budget State Secretary Eva De Bleeker gave an insight into what the EU is paying when she accidentally tweeted a table last month that showed the price of each jab. The now-deleted tweet revealed that the EU is handing over €1.78 (£1.59) for each dose of the Oxford vaccine and €12 (£10.60) for the Pfizer version.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
The vaccine prices reflect a discount in respect of an upfront investment. It appears that the EU are purchasing the Pfizer, and the AZ vaccines substantially cheaper than the UK. AZ have two factories in the UK, and two in Europe.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
The prices dont seem to reflect this.
This dispute clearly surrounds the fact that while AZ has warned the EU that they will be woefully short of the promised doses, while they are maintaining the agreed 2 million per week for the UK. They seem to be trying to justify this by pointing out that the UKs contract was signed earlier, and that the UK supply is manufactured in the UK. Neither of which are being accepted by the EU.
Nothing at all to do with EU membership.
In order to reassure the public, individual units are sold without significant profit (although I note that the EU are paying just over half what we are). But that ignores the £millions given up-front. The UK alone freely admits that it has given AstraZeneca £300 million up-front. Then there will be the office space, the Oxford Uni input, and so on.
There are loads of different ways to make a profit. My favourite one was a "not for profit" charity many years ago. It never made a profit, but its founding directors paid themselves £millions every year as "salary".
These are fixed prices per unit-so cost of production is going to be a factor.
Feel free to keep believing the papers.
When I said this dispute has nothing to do with EU membership, what I meant was that as EU member countries are allowed to make their own arrangements when it comes to vaccines, we have not benefitted from not being members.
Gives them justification to scale down their Astrazeneca order (you know, the 1 that was never going to arrive) and save face. With a rather pathetic scientific so-called "reason."
This has a lot to do with Brexit. It serves to show that it is bad for Europe, as well as bad for us.
Germany seem to be basing this on the trials.
What they have said is that because only 8% of the guinea pigs were aged 56 to 69, and 4% were over 70, it is not a big enough sample.
I know the same amount about vaccine testing as I do about international contracts, but those figures dont seem to be particularly high.
The expert on Sky News said the German organisation is very much respected throughout the world, and should be taken seriously.
Amusing timing.
Didn't worry them when ordering millions of doses.
Announce it the day before the European Medicines Agency due to officially authorise the Astrazeneca vaccine. And before the imminent report of the 30,000 study re Astra in the USA. You just know that pressure has been put on the EMA. And at least 1 German newspaper has mistakenly said the UK vaccine has obly 8% efficacy, whereas it was 8% of the study was over 65. Totally agree that Germany is very much respected on these sorts of things, as are we.
This is a delicate mixture of politics, posturing, and what the BBC called "vaccine nationalism". On both sides.
Inspired by both companies over-promising and under-delivering. And Brexit.
British business leaders warn of 'substantial difficulties' at UK ports
Last week it emerged that many small UK businesses are being told by advisers working for the Department for International Trade (DIT) to register subsidiaries within the EU single market, from where they can distribute their goods far more freely. Officials were found to be advising firms that it was the best way to circumvent border issues and VAT problems that have been building up since 1 January.
A separate report has found that the majority of lorries travelling from the UK to the EU via Calais and Dunkirk are empty, suggesting that the situation at the border has worsened since the UK agreed a trade deal with the EU.
According to figures obtained by ITV from the Prefecture Hauts-de-France et du Nord for the week ending 24 January, an average of 3,400 lorries a day travelled from the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel to Northern France. Of these, 65% were empty.
The data also shows that heavy goods vehicle traffic in both directions across the English Channel was down 30% on normal flows.
There were also delays for lorry drivers at the French border after it was found that only one in 10 export health certificates – which are required for consignments of food, including for meat and fish – were correctly completed.
Comments
Astra Zeneca signed a contract to supply 80 million doses before the end of March.
This total is now expected to be 31 million.
Yet the supply to the UK, seems unaffected.
The EU contract is with Astra Zeneca, rather than any particular plant, or plants.
A contract signed later, surely has no less legal weight than one signed slightly earlier?
The EU hasnt interrupted the Pfizer supply to the UK.
This is despite the fact that they have ordered 600 million Pfizer doses and the factory supplying the UK is in Belgium.
The argument being put forward to justify the priority being given to the British supply appears to be that the contract was signed earlier, and the plants supplying the UK, are in the UK.
Whether or not we were EU members has no bearing on this dispute.
To put this in perspective the UK has enough vaccine ordered to vaccinate the whole UK population more than five times.
But EU Commission officials said on Wednesday that the contract stipulated that the company had also committed to providing vaccines from two factories in Britain.
They added the firm had not provided sufficient explanations on why doses could not be shipped from stocks at fully functioning factories.
Reuters on Tuesday exclusively reported that EU’s calls to reroute doses from Britain had not been answered by AstraZeneca.
AstraZeneca said on Wednesday that supply chains were developed with input from specific countries or international organisations and that each supply chain was dedicated to the relevant countries or regions, making use of local manufacturing where possible.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-eu-astrazeneca-idUSKBN29W159
European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen earlier told forum: "Europe invested billions to help develop the world's first Covid-19 vaccines. And now, the companies must deliver. They must honour their obligations."
The bloc signed a deal in August for 300 million doses, with an option for 100 million more. The EU had hoped that, as soon as approval was given, delivery would start straight away, with some 80 million doses arriving in the 27 nations by March.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55805903
In a nutshell, here is why EU officials are furious with AstraZeneca. They say the contract between them and the pharmaceutical giant clearly stipulates that the two main vaccine production factories in the UK are to be classed as primary manufacturing sites, and the production sites in Belgium and the Netherlands are secondary priorities.
The vaccine production issues are in Belgium and the Netherlands (they have been producing lower yields). So, this is a no-brainer to EU officials - the UK sites should be used to transport the vaccines across the continent.
And today's impromptu news conference by the EU's Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides shows that any tolerance of the company's previous explanations has worn thin.
In fact, EU officials point out to me that EU money went into upgrading the facilities in the UK and that they fully expected it to be operational for them. This has turned into a deeply unpleasant row, and sets the stage for a difficult meeting with the UK-Swedish company.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55822602
You are right to say an earlier contract doesn't oust a later one. That is not the problem.
AstraZeneca are an Anglo-Swedish company. That is a country not in the EU, and one right on the geographical (and logistical) edge, whose population is less than 2% of the EU.
What Astra are NOT saying, because of the political sensitivities, is precisely what you have posted a gazillion times. There are considerable logistical problems trading between the UK (or, more accurately, GB) and the EU.
Insurmountable? Of course not. But they cost time and money. Astra cannot fulfil all their orders. So they are concentrating on the ones that make them the most profit. Like anyone would.
Note that it is not Pfizer that are trying to redress any imbalance. It is the EU. Insisting Pfizer break their contracts with us. Abusing a dominant market position. With (presumably) Pfizer's money.
Although they have put forward the same argument as the UK government has put forward in regard to the AZ vaccine.
As an example, in these situations, the vaccine providers always say they won't be taking a profit. Of course they are-just subtly. This sort of research costs £billions. There are all sorts of ways they can be compensated without making a "profit". New plants paid for and funded by governments being just one.
The Uk will have contributed far more to this Company, just like Germany and the EU have to Pfizer. That is why they are based in those countries.
Companies follow the money. Both in the current contracts, and for future investment. I know that. And, for all their posturing, so do the EU.
Samantha Cameron said the criticism Carrie Symonds received last year was 'harsh'. Miss Symonds was reportedly nicknamed 'Princess Nut Nut' by opponents in No 10.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9196871/Samantha-Cameron-blasts-sexist-abuse-levelled-Carrie-Symonds-Princess-Nut-Nut-nickname.html
In an extraordinary move, Nicola Sturgeon risked undermining Britain's position, with Brussels heaping pressure on firms to give the bloc a bigger share of the stocks. Despite the PM warning that the information must be confidential to protect the rollout, Ms Sturgeon told Holyrood she will release it from next week 'regardless of what they say'. Tory MPs vented fury at Ms Sturgeon - who wants Scotland to go independent and rejoin the bloc - over the intervention, saying she is 'obviously more inclined to help the EU than she is the UK'. The row erupted as tensions between the EU and UK over vaccine supplies escalated again, with MEPs threatening 'trade war'. There are claims officials have been sent from the medicines agency to the AstraZeneca plant in Belgium to check it genuinely has problems producing doses. It comes as the bloc tries to turn the screw on the UK-based pharma giant to bail out its shambolic vaccine rollout. European politicians warned the 'consequences' of refusing to divert stocks of the UK-made jabs to EU would be a ban on exports of the Pfizer version from Belgium - suggesting 3.5million doses due to arrive soon could be at risk. EU chiefs want more of the Oxford jabs - made in Staffordshire and Oxfordshire - be handed over to make up for a 75million shortfall on the continent.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9196445/MEPs-threaten-TRADE-WAR-UK-vaccine-supplies.html
A day before EU regulators are expected to approve the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab, a German commission said there was 'insufficient data to assess the efficacy of the vaccine for persons aged 65 years and older'. British regulators, by contrast, have approved the jab for all age groups - with AstraZeneca pointing to data published in a medical journal showing that 100 per cent of older adults generated antibodies in trials. Germany's decision comes amid an angry row between the EU and AstraZeneca over vaccine supplies, with the bloc lagging far behind Britain in immunising its population against Covid-19 (pictured left, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen; top right, one of AstraZeneca's UK plants; bottom right: an elderly patient receiving a Covid jab).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9197521/Germanys-vaccine-commission-says-AstraZeneca-jab-used-65s.html
Gives them justification to scale down their Astrazeneca order (you know, the 1 that was never going to arrive) and save face. With a rather pathetic scientific so-called "reason."
This has a lot to do with Brexit. It serves to show that it is bad for Europe, as well as bad for us.
What they have said is that because only 8% of the guinea pigs were aged 56 to 69, and 4% were over 70, it is not a big enough sample.
I know the same amount about vaccine testing as I do about international contracts, but those figures dont seem to be particularly high.
The expert on Sky News said the German organisation is very much respected throughout the world, and should be taken seriously.
The company’s Chester Road plant, which produces car drivetrains, is expected to end production in mid-2022, with its work likely to move to Europe.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/gkn-plans-closure-of-uk-automotive-plant-with-loss-of-500-jobs/ar-BB1dbfn7?ocid=msedgntp
Didn't worry them when ordering millions of doses.
Announce it the day before the European Medicines Agency due to officially authorise the Astrazeneca vaccine. And before the imminent report of the 30,000 study re Astra in the USA. You just know that pressure has been put on the EMA.
And at least 1 German newspaper has mistakenly said the UK vaccine has obly 8% efficacy, whereas it was 8% of the study was over 65.
Totally agree that Germany is very much respected on these sorts of things, as are we.
This is a delicate mixture of politics, posturing, and what the BBC called "vaccine nationalism". On both sides.
Inspired by both companies over-promising and under-delivering. And Brexit.
Last week it emerged that many small UK businesses are being told by advisers working for the Department for International Trade (DIT) to register subsidiaries within the EU single market, from where they can distribute their goods far more freely. Officials were found to be advising firms that it was the best way to circumvent border issues and VAT problems that have been building up since 1 January.
A separate report has found that the majority of lorries travelling from the UK to the EU via Calais and Dunkirk are empty, suggesting that the situation at the border has worsened since the UK agreed a trade deal with the EU.
According to figures obtained by ITV from the Prefecture Hauts-de-France et du Nord for the week ending 24 January, an average of 3,400 lorries a day travelled from the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel to Northern France. Of these, 65% were empty.
The data also shows that heavy goods vehicle traffic in both directions across the English Channel was down 30% on normal flows.
There were also delays for lorry drivers at the French border after it was found that only one in 10 export health certificates – which are required for consignments of food, including for meat and fish – were correctly completed.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/british-business-leaders-warn-of-substantial-difficulties-at-uk-ports/ar-BB1dbEBx?ocid=msedgdhp