You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Effects Of Brexit.

1242527293095

Comments

  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,502
    HANSON said:

    not sure what you mean ... i had to copy and paste in 3 parts and put them in wrong order so explained that so it was not confusing..

    I was joking.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,502


    I regard my self as a fair minded person.
    I am clear on what is right and wrong.
    If I thought that the EU was in the wrong I wouldnt hesitate to say so.

    This dispute is simple.
    I have often found that when people go into a long story it is often in an attempt to camouflage the truth.

    In a nutshell AZ contracted to deliver 270 million doses of vaccine to the EU by the end of the second quarter of this year.
    They now plan to deliver just 101 million.
    AZ have blamed production delays for the shortfall.
    Thats it end of.
    That is the dispute.

    The EU have got the hump, and in my view quite rightly so.
    The fact that the UK supply has remained unaffected by the production delays has exacerbated the situation.
    How is this possible?
    AZ put forward a number of other excuses, which were later found to be untrue.
    How can production delays affect one contract, and not the other.

    A few justifications have been put forward.
    Like the UK invested in AZ upfront.
    Yes they did, but the EU invested four times as much.
    The UK signed their contract first.
    The EU had signed their contract the day before the UK, in late August last year.
    This was subsequent the EU signing an agreement in June last year.

    AZ have supplied the UK in full.
    This is despite the EU signing a contract first, signing an agreement months before, investing 4 times as much as the UK, as well as ordering 4 times as many doses.

    As a result the EU have threatened all sorts which obviously winds people up in this country but is probably popular amongst EU citizens.

    They are not asking for all of it at the expense of the UK.

    All they are asking for is reciprocity.

    Who can really blame them?

    i guess it comes down to the wording within the contract that has been signed .... As to if AZ has broken it .

    I dont think there is any doubt that they have broken the contract, they havent delivered the agreed number of doses.

    the article explains the EU signed there contract on there agreed terms which the article goes into detail of and compares to the UK terms ..Yes they did sign on the 27th and the UK a day later .

    Yes and the EU signed an agreement for 300 million doses a couple of months prior to signing the contract.

    rightly or wrongly i cannot see that AZ have broken the terms of the EU contract as there is a section where if there is any dispute sets out the terms if the EU feel its been broken... surly they read and understood what they was signing , the last paragraph says

    If AZ contracted to supply 270 million doses by the end of this quarter, and plan to deliver only 101 million, how can the contract not be broken?
    The AZ top man was slated when this dispute arose for claiming that the UK signed their contract in advance of the EU, and therefore entitled to preferential treatment.
    He is not saying anything now.


    To be sure, the EU contract says Brussels may suspend payments if AstraZeneca fails to deliver, and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU.

    Does that make sense to you?
    They signed the EU agreement in June.
    They signed the UK contract after the EU contract.
    Surely if the UK contract has more value than the EU contract, and was signed later, doesnt that make contracts in general not worth the paper they are written on?


    And in the end, the EU waived its right to take AstraZeneca to court if there are delivery delays.

    I dont think they have yet.


    I'm no expert so my interpretation is that AZ will make there best effort but if they fail then they have covered themselves ..

    The legal opinion I posted said that the two contracts are pretty much the same, but the UK contract includes harsher penalties.

    it does not give any guarantee just because they ordered 4 x more .

    I was just pointing out that purely on a commercial basis, they might have given preference to the EU, as they have invested 4 times as much, ordered 4 times as many doses, and entered agreement a couple of months earlier.

    the UK contract has penalty clause which could be why the UK has not had any great delay

    Dont all contracts have a penalty clause?
    Wouldnt a contract without a penalty clause be completely useless


    the article is very long and the lawyer is explaining the difference between the 2 contracts so I'm not trying to camouflage the truth .


    As I said previously the other legal opinion said the the UK contract had tougher penalties, other than that they were pretty much the same.
    I think if AZ had let down the UK, and supplied the EU in full, there would have been a massive outcry over here.
    To me this just stinks.
    It leaves a bad taste.
    We used to think more about honour than being sneaky.
    Production delays that affect one contract is b0ll0cks.
    Do you think the delays will cost lives in the EU.
    Why do you think that nobody even mentions India, and the 5 million missing doses that are slowing down are vaccine roll out this month?
    Will that cost lives?
    Why doesnt anyone mention Canada, and their AZ restrictions?
    Every time a European politician says anything they represent the EU.
    Yet during the last 47 years, when any British politician said something stupid or out of order they werent representing the EU.
    What I mean is that if Merkel, or Macron say something we dont like, in this country we dont criticise them or their country, we always criticise the EU.
    Yet while we were still members, if Boris said something stupid, we would criticise him, or the Tories, never the EU.

    But they have already said that they are going to do worse in quarter 2 than they did in quarter 1.


  • tai-gartai-gar Member Posts: 2,718
    Can we have more pictures in this book please?
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,502
    Essexphil said:

    Well it looks like that is likely to continue.
    "I am happy to answer questions that are pertinent.
    Just not keen on pointless quizes.'
    I am not hiding from anything.
    "

    Bluff. Raise.

    Even Boris would be ashamed of that whopper :)

    "We used to have the highest death rate in Europe, although I haven't checked it since I knew fine well that that is no longer true..

    Fixed your post.


    I should have said we still have one of the highest death rates in Europe, well ahead of France, and Germany, and I find you comment about Boris and whoppers a bit harsh.

    Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country
    By The Visual and Data Journalism Team
    BBC News

    Published17 hours ago


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,502
    HAYSIE said:

    What is a terrible plan?
    The plan seems to be that the NI Assembly get to vote on the protocol in 2024.
    If they vote against, the EU have to come up with an unspecified alternative.
    Maybe the Boris plan is to unilaterally extend the grace periods until 2024, to limit the chaos.
    Although I am not sure what might change between now and 2024
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,502
    HAYSIE said:

    "I am happy to answer questions that are pertinent.
    Just not keen on pointless quizes.'
    I am not hiding from anything.
    "

    Bluff. Raise.

    Even Boris would be ashamed of that whopper :)

    "We used to have the highest death rate in Europe, although I haven't checked it since I knew fine well that that is no longer true..

    Fixed your post.
    I should have said we still have one of the highest death rates in Europe, well ahead of France, and Germany, and I find you comment about Boris and whoppers a bit harsh.

    Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country
    By The Visual and Data Journalism Team
    BBC News

    Published17 hours ago


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105

    Please be aware that I will be checking an emojis used on this thread against the old fa rt test.
    You seem ok so far.
    You have been warned.
  • HANSONHANSON Member Posts: 903
    the EU contract says AZ will make there best endeavours and also says best efforts to deliver doses on time and quantities .. if AZ fail to do so there are terms in which the EU can follow to redress the shortfall in there contract which the EU signed freely ...

    You keep implying the EU had 100 million guaranteed in 1st qtr and AZ came up short .
    i see it as AZ made there best efforts and came up short of expectation ..

    i interpreted this part of the EU contract..

    if AZ short suspend payments ..

    have to admit next part when read is very confusing

    and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU

    sounds like AZ cannot have impending contracts but if they do and it impedes AZs EU contract then AZ cannot be deemed in breach with the EU ..

    After reading what the expert in contractual law wrote when compare ring both contracts my opinion has not changed same as yours has not ...

    we will have to agree to disagree ..
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,502
    HANSON said:

    the EU contract says AZ will make there best endeavours and also says best efforts to deliver doses on time and quantities .. if AZ fail to do so there are terms in which the EU can follow to redress the shortfall in there contract which the EU signed freely ...

    Both contracts are the same in this respect.

    You keep implying the EU had 100 million guaranteed in 1st qtr and AZ came up short .
    i see it as AZ made there best efforts and came up short of expectation ..

    The first quarter agreement was for 90 million and they delivered 31 million.
    They are already saying that they will only deliver 70 million and not the 180 million that they agreed to supply in quarter 2.
    The UK supply will be on target.
    The reason for the EU shortfall according to AZ, is production delays, nothing to do with contracts.
    These production delays have miraculously not affected the UK supply.


    i interpreted this part of the EU contract..

    if AZ short suspend payments ..

    have to admit next part when read is very confusing

    and it specifically states that AstraZeneca may not have any impending contracts that would hinder its ability to supply the EU. But it also states that if AstraZeneca’s performance is “impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach” of its agreement with the EU

    But they signed the EU contract first.

    sounds like AZ cannot have impending contracts but if they do and it impedes AZs EU contract then AZ cannot be deemed in breach with the EU ..

    Then maybe they shouldnt have signed a contract with the UK.

    After reading what the expert in contractual law wrote when compare ring both contracts my opinion has not changed same as yours has not ...

    we will have to agree to disagree ..

    If it had occurred the other way around you would be screaming like a stuck pig.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 9,142
    HAYSIE said:

    If it had occurred the other way around you would be screaming like a stuck pig.
    One of us has considerable experience of Big Pharma. It is not you.

    When a Lawyer refers to the contract "technically" being 1 day later, they are being disingenuous.

    Lawyers working for Big Pharma in Senior positions are paid vast amounts of money. Put it this way-the gap between the top Pharma lawyers and me on Contract Law is about the same difference as between me and you. and I have spent most of my life dealing with Contract Law.

    They are paid the big bucks to look after their clients, and the money. The Head of Legal at AZ or Pfizer will be earning way more than me, or you, or indeed any Lawyer working for the UK or the EU. Not because they are good. But because they are among the very best of the best.

    They know fine well that at some point some smart alec will pull the FOI (Freedom of Information) trick. So it works like this.

    1. Joint venture agreement. With well-crafted Non-Disclosure Agreement. While all parties risk hundreds of millions of pounds, wanting to ensure that their work cannot be gifted to a rival
    2. Lots of work done covertly, not least due to the importance of being first and/or better. Temporary new organisation for joint works, none of which made public
    3. Once you have done all the backstage work, sign the Contract you want others to see. Because that makes it easy to deny that anything else ever existed. And you don't have to disclose historic trade-sensitive stuff.

    You'll no doubt that I'm making all this up. But then I have done this lots of times. And you haven't. I know you don't answer any questions. So ask yourself these:-

    1. Do you think there was no Contract signed when Oxford Uni were persuaded to ditch Merck and go to AZ?
    2. Do you think a multi-billion pound Company allows people from Governments and Universities to sit on Joint Venture Boards without a Contract?
    3. Why do you think it is caused the "Oxford" vaccine? Why not Heidelberg? Paris? Do you think there just might have been a Contract in place BEFORE all the work is carried out?

  • tai-gartai-gar Member Posts: 2,718
    Here's a question for you - if Astra Zeneca vaccine is licensed to a UK company why on earth are we not manufacturing it here? If not why not?
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 9,142
    HAYSIE said:

    "I am happy to answer questions that are pertinent.
    Just not keen on pointless quizes.'
    I am not hiding from anything.
    "

    Bluff. Raise.

    Even Boris would be ashamed of that whopper :)

    "We used to have the highest death rate in Europe, although I haven't checked it since I knew fine well that that is no longer true..

    Fixed your post.
    I should have said we still have one of the highest death rates in Europe, well ahead of France, and Germany, and I find you comment about Boris and whoppers a bit harsh.

    Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country
    By The Visual and Data Journalism Team
    BBC News

    Published17 hours ago


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105

    You are shameless at only using facts that suit you. You claim you are looking at now, not the past. Let us look at the rate NOW.

    "SHOT AHEAD UK’s Covid infection rate plunges lower than 25 of 27 EU nations as cases fall 28% in a week after vaccine rollout

    Joe Duggan

    1 Apr 2021, 7:19Updated: 1 Apr 2021, 10:04

    THE UK'S Covid infection rate is lower than 25 of 27 EU countries after the success of Britain's vaccine rollout.

    The daily case numbers in the UK have slumped by 28 per cent in a week, official figures show.

    Only Denmark and Portugal have lower infection rates among EU nations that the UK, the seven-day average of cases per million people shows
    The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slump
    5
    The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slumpCredit: AFP

    The UK is now the best-placed major European nation as a third-wave wreaks havoc on the continent.

    France has seen cases triple since early February to nearly 60,000 cases a day, with doctors in overwhelmed hospitals forced to choose which Covid patients get a ventilator.

    Emmanuel Macron last night declared a four-week national lockdown and warned France is likely to "lose control" amid a surge in coronavirus cases.

    The French President has blamed the UK Kent variant for the explosion in cases, with the weekly infection rate around eight times higher than in the UK.
    FRANCE LOCKDOWN

    In a televised nationwide address , President Macron said the "epidemic is accelerating" and warned France is likely to "lose control" as infections spiral.

    Germany's infection rate is nearly three times higher than the UK's, with 23,681 cases recorded on March 30.

    The UK has seen an average of 73 daily cases per million people over the past week.

    Only two EU countries - Denmark and Portugal - have lower case rates.
    French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid rates
    5
    French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid ratesCredit: AFP
    Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000
    5
    Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000

    Hungary is the worst hit EU nation, with the daily rate soaring to 882 cases per one million people.

    France's seven-day average is 571, with Netherlands 449 and Italy's 334.

    As the pandemic sends Europe into meltdown, UK cases, deaths and hospitalisations have dropped to a six-month low.

    Yesterday, there were 43 deaths - a 56 per cent week-on-week drop on last Wednesday's deaths -. and 4,052 cases.

    UK deaths are now averaging averaging 50 a day, down from the peak of 1,284 deaths on January 19.

    Almost six in ten adults in the UK have received at least one dose of the vaccine, with the EU figure only around 11 per cent.

    Europe's chaotic vaccine rollout has seen Germany this week ban the AstraZeneca jab for under-55s over blood clot fears.

    The shock decision comes days after France, Italy and Germany resumed their rollout out of the AstraZeneca vaccine after the EU finally declared it safe.

    The trio's humiliating U-turn had come after all three countries led the way in suspending use of the jab amid an unfounded safety scare about the link with blood-clots.

    And today the European Medical Agency again ruled the AZ jab safe despite Germany slapping a ban on using it on under 55s.
    Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain'
    5
    Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain'Credit: EPA"

    That was in lots of National newspapers yesterday. Did you not see it?

  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 9,142
    edited April 2021
    Please be aware that I will be checking an emojis used on this thread against the old fa rt test.
    You seem ok so far.
    You have been warned.


    I liked this bit. Don't know about you, but I read this article and had a nervous feeling that I might be too old to use the stuff that the young think of as old!

    Then I thought of how often @madprof uses that poo emoji. And I felt much better...
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 9,142
    tai-gar said:

    Here's a question for you - if Astra Zeneca vaccine is licensed to a UK company why on earth are we not manufacturing it here? If not why not?

    We are. In Oxford, Keele and Wrexham. We also manufacture parts for the Pfizer vaccine in (I think) Yorkshire.

    It is also made in several sites in the EU, but they have had difficulties at various sites. Which is, of course, part of (but certainly not all of) the problem.

    Why is it also made abroad (Brazil, India etc)? Partly because of the necessary global reach. And partly to save money.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,502
    Essexphil said:

    One of us has considerable experience of Big Pharma. It is not you.

    When a Lawyer refers to the contract "technically" being 1 day later, they are being disingenuous.

    Lawyers working for Big Pharma in Senior positions are paid vast amounts of money. Put it this way-the gap between the top Pharma lawyers and me on Contract Law is about the same difference as between me and you. and I have spent most of my life dealing with Contract Law.

    They are paid the big bucks to look after their clients, and the money. The Head of Legal at AZ or Pfizer will be earning way more than me, or you, or indeed any Lawyer working for the UK or the EU. Not because they are good. But because they are among the very best of the best.

    They know fine well that at some point some smart alec will pull the FOI (Freedom of Information) trick. So it works like this.

    1. Joint venture agreement. With well-crafted Non-Disclosure Agreement. While all parties risk hundreds of millions of pounds, wanting to ensure that their work cannot be gifted to a rival
    2. Lots of work done covertly, not least due to the importance of being first and/or better. Temporary new organisation for joint works, none of which made public
    3. Once you have done all the backstage work, sign the Contract you want others to see. Because that makes it easy to deny that anything else ever existed. And you don't have to disclose historic trade-sensitive stuff.

    You'll no doubt that I'm making all this up. But then I have done this lots of times. And you haven't. I know you don't answer any questions. So ask yourself these:-

    1. Do you think there was no Contract signed when Oxford Uni were persuaded to ditch Merck and go to AZ?
    2. Do you think a multi-billion pound Company allows people from Governments and Universities to sit on Joint Venture Boards without a Contract?
    3. Why do you think it is caused the "Oxford" vaccine? Why not Heidelberg? Paris? Do you think there just might have been a Contract in place BEFORE all the work is carried out?

    I wouldnt dream of ignoring your experience as a lawyer, and appreciate what you say.
    Although I think some of it is irrelevant.
    It is surely pointless going into a long speech about how clever AZs lawyers are, when these clever lawyers presumably produced both contracts.
    That is unless you are suggesting that the contract that they prepared for the EU was purposely inferior in some way, to the contract they prepared for the UK.

    Anyway I regard the contract issue as a red herring, as AZ are clearly blaming production delays for their shortcomings.

    Repeating myself over and over again is pointless, so I am not going to.

    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.



    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.”



    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




    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.



    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.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,502
    Essexphil said:

    Please be aware that I will be checking an emojis used on this thread against the old fa rt test.
    You seem ok so far.
    You have been warned.


    I liked this bit. Don't know about you, but I read this article and had a nervous feeling that I might be too old to use the stuff that the young think of as old!

    Then I thought of how often @madprof uses that poo emoji. And I felt much better...

    Something to agree on.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,502
    Essexphil said:

    I should have said we still have one of the highest death rates in Europe, well ahead of France, and Germany, and I find you comment about Boris and whoppers a bit harsh.

    Covid map: Coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country
    By The Visual and Data Journalism Team
    BBC News

    Published17 hours ago


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
    You are shameless at only using facts that suit you. You claim you are looking at now, not the past. Let us look at the rate NOW.

    "SHOT AHEAD UK’s Covid infection rate plunges lower than 25 of 27 EU nations as cases fall 28% in a week after vaccine rollout

    Joe Duggan

    1 Apr 2021, 7:19Updated: 1 Apr 2021, 10:04

    THE UK'S Covid infection rate is lower than 25 of 27 EU countries after the success of Britain's vaccine rollout.

    The daily case numbers in the UK have slumped by 28 per cent in a week, official figures show.

    Only Denmark and Portugal have lower infection rates among EU nations that the UK, the seven-day average of cases per million people shows
    The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slump
    5
    The success of the UK's vaccine rollout has seen deaths and infections slumpCredit: AFP

    The UK is now the best-placed major European nation as a third-wave wreaks havoc on the continent.

    France has seen cases triple since early February to nearly 60,000 cases a day, with doctors in overwhelmed hospitals forced to choose which Covid patients get a ventilator.

    Emmanuel Macron last night declared a four-week national lockdown and warned France is likely to "lose control" amid a surge in coronavirus cases.

    The French President has blamed the UK Kent variant for the explosion in cases, with the weekly infection rate around eight times higher than in the UK.
    FRANCE LOCKDOWN

    In a televised nationwide address , President Macron said the "epidemic is accelerating" and warned France is likely to "lose control" as infections spiral.

    Germany's infection rate is nearly three times higher than the UK's, with 23,681 cases recorded on March 30.

    The UK has seen an average of 73 daily cases per million people over the past week.

    Only two EU countries - Denmark and Portugal - have lower case rates.
    French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid rates
    5
    French president Emmanuel Macron warned in a televised address his country is likely to "lose control" amid soaring Covid ratesCredit: AFP
    Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000
    5
    Total deaths in France have soared to almost 100,000

    Hungary is the worst hit EU nation, with the daily rate soaring to 882 cases per one million people.

    France's seven-day average is 571, with Netherlands 449 and Italy's 334.

    As the pandemic sends Europe into meltdown, UK cases, deaths and hospitalisations have dropped to a six-month low.

    Yesterday, there were 43 deaths - a 56 per cent week-on-week drop on last Wednesday's deaths -. and 4,052 cases.

    UK deaths are now averaging averaging 50 a day, down from the peak of 1,284 deaths on January 19.

    Almost six in ten adults in the UK have received at least one dose of the vaccine, with the EU figure only around 11 per cent.

    Europe's chaotic vaccine rollout has seen Germany this week ban the AstraZeneca jab for under-55s over blood clot fears.

    The shock decision comes days after France, Italy and Germany resumed their rollout out of the AstraZeneca vaccine after the EU finally declared it safe.

    The trio's humiliating U-turn had come after all three countries led the way in suspending use of the jab amid an unfounded safety scare about the link with blood-clots.

    And today the European Medical Agency again ruled the AZ jab safe despite Germany slapping a ban on using it on under 55s.
    Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain'
    5
    Angela Merkel banning the Oxford vaccine and flirting with Putin over the Sputnik jab has been blamed on 'hatred for Brexit Britain'Credit: EPA"

    That was in lots of National newspapers yesterday. Did you not see it?



    In my defence I used an article that was 17 hours old.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 9,142
    edited April 2021
    Who wrote that? It was lovely. As a work of fiction.

    Let's look at fairness. Or reciprocity.

    You printed the articles previously. The EU proudly announced that their regulator would be quicker than the UK, they would make the vaccine quicker. And we would have to wait our turn in the queue.

    Our regulator was quicker than the EMA. We made the vaccine quicker. And the EU screams there is a lack of reciprocity. And the EU is waiting its turn in the queue. Really? Looks remarkably similar to me.

    "Global responsibility". No. all they are saying is that they are going to hijack other Company's product, and share it among their members. Because when stuff is made in the UK that might be ours or theirs, it is wrong for AZ to favour us. But no problem in hijacking AZ/Pfizer product meant for elsewhere. Not to the UK. Not to Australia. And certainly not to poor countries.

    Let us look at why we are quicker. See if you can spot the key divergence.

    1. Technological experts that have no experience in mass roll-out (Biontech) want to partner with a global player to combine expertise
    2. They want to use an American Company-Pfizer
    3. The EU agree, place 80% of future orders there, and have another 20% ordered with AZ
    4. There are various problems in the US and UK. Which result in a shortfall in product. Which, for reasons that are hotly disputed, doesn't seem to fall on the places that make/own the stuff

    Or

    1. Technological experts that have no experience in mass roll-out (Oxford Uni) want to partner with a global player to combine expertise
    2. They want to use an American Company-Merck
    3. The UK (for whatever reason, tho I'm sure we would disagree as to those reasons) persuades the experts to partner instead with a UK-based Company, AZ. Place 80% of orders with a UK Company, 20% with a US one
    4. There are various problems in the US and UK. Which result in a shortfall in product. Which, for reasons which are hotly disputed, doesn't seem to fall on the places that make/own the stuff

    Can you spot a key difference?
    Do you think that this is the EU's very own "track and trace". Or do the UK deserve credit?
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,502
    Essexphil said:

    Who wrote that? It was lovely. As a work of fiction.

    Let's look at fairness. Or reciprocity.

    You printed the articles previously. The EU proudly announced that their regulator would be quicker than the UK, they would make the vaccine quicker. And we would have to wait our turn in the queue.

    Our regulator was quicker than the EMA. We made the vaccine quicker. And the EU screams there is a lack of reciprocity. And the EU is waiting its turn in the queue. Really? Looks remarkably similar to me.

    "Global responsibility". No. all they are saying is that they are going to hijack other Company's product, and share it among their members. Because when stuff is made in the UK that might be ours or theirs, it is wrong for AZ to favour us. But no problem in hijacking AZ/Pfizer product meant for elsewhere. Not to the UK. Not to Australia. And certainly not to poor countries.

    Let us look at why we are quicker. See if you can spot the key divergence.

    1. Technological experts that have no experience in mass roll-out (Biontech) want to partner with a global player to combine expertise
    2. They want to use an American Company-Pfizer
    3. The EU agree, place 80% of future orders there, and have another 20% ordered with AZ
    4. There are various problems in the US and UK. Which result in a shortfall in product. Which, for reasons that are hotly disputed, doesn't seem to fall on the places that make/own the stuff

    Or

    1. Technological experts that have no experience in mass roll-out (Oxford Uni) want to partner with a global player to combine expertise
    2. They want to use an American Company-Merck
    3. The UK (for whatever reason, tho I'm sure we would disagree as to those reasons) persuades the experts to partner instead with a UK-based Company, AZ. Place 80% of orders with a UK Company, 20% with a US one
    4. There are various problems in the US and UK. Which result in a shortfall in product. Which, for reasons which are hotly disputed, doesn't seem to fall on the places that make/own the stuff

    Can you spot a key difference?
    Do you think that this is the EU's very own "track and trace". Or do the UK deserve credit?

    How can production delays only affect one contract?
  • tai-gartai-gar Member Posts: 2,718
    edited April 2021
    Essexphil said:

    We are. In Oxford, Keele and Wrexham. We also manufacture parts for the Pfizer vaccine in (I think) Yorkshire.

    It is also made in several sites in the EU, but they have had difficulties at various sites. Which is, of course, part of (but certainly not all of) the problem.

    Why is it also made abroad (Brazil, India etc)? Partly because of the necessary global reach. And partly to save money.
    Sorry I meant to say all that we need to be manufactured in UK.

    If vaccine being sold at cost why not let other Countries manufacture their own under licence at least for the foreseeable future.
  • HANSONHANSON Member Posts: 903
    Did you actually read the article in case you did not he is the part on timeline ...

    Earlier timelines
    As with supply chains, the timeline is also disputed. But it does appear that the U.K. got an earlier start on the ground — even though that’s not clear on paper.

    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.

    However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said.

    One official close to the U.K. contract said the agreement began as an email in April from the U.K. government saying it would provide £65 million to help the University of Oxford execute its production plan. It later evolved into a fully-fledged contract between the government and the British-Swedish company, which also might explain why it took until August for the contract to be signed.


    Most important, however, is that it meant that the British government was “effectively a major shareholder” in the jab’s development as early as April. After Oxford and AstraZeneca agreed to team up at the end of April, for example, the British government filled seats on Oxford-AstraZeneca joint liaison committees.

    “Protecting the U.K.‘s supply was a central objective ... as that was being negotiated from April onwards,” the official said. Even though this isn't explicitly stated in the contract, the official said that the government’s role in the early stages of the vaccine meant “there is absolutely no way that AstraZeneca would have been able to enter a contract which gave away equal priority of access to the U.K. doses.”

    This British supply was therefore already secured by the time four EU countries — Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy — signed an agreement in June to obtain up to 300 million doses of the vaccines. The countries’ deal at the time was a fairly bare-bones agreement, and it’s unclear whether it established a European supply chain, but over the summer it was transferred into the formal purchasing agreement managed by the Commission.
Sign In or Register to comment.