A really interesting, calm interview with the head of AstraZeneca

[HelloThereMeHearties]

This is really worth reading, to shed some light on the whole sorry EU vaccine mess. It's in English.

Also really interesting about the mechanics of vaccine rollout.

www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_pascal_soriot_ceo_astrazeneca_coronavirus_covid_vaccines-284349628/

Well the facts are that the EU ordered late, paid less than others and is threatening to sue a pharmaceutical company who is making a not for profit vaccine. Classy!

I think I broadly understand the situation but if someone more knowledgeable could answer some things I'm still confused about, that would be great.

• OP says the EU negotiated the price down, how can that be if the AZ vaccine is being sold at cost everywhere?

• A lot of articles are saying that the Inclusive Vaccine Alliance were told by the EU not to finalise their initial deal with AZ. Does that mean they were legally prevented from doing so or that there was political pressure not to? And how does that fit in with another claim I keep seeing, that without Brexit we could still have gone down the route of sorting out our own procurement independent of the rest of the EU if we'd wanted to?

• I know the final contract was 'best effort' rather than a guarantee. But for how long prior to approval would AZ be expected to stockpile doses for it to constitute 'best effort'? Specifically, could they end up in hot water for sending 4 million doses from the EU manufacturer to the UK in December, rather than reserving them for the EU so they were available immediately following approval? (I realise the 4m is only a tiny fraction of the predicted shortfall.)

• Related, is it in any way suspicious that AZ are only announcing the expected shortfall now, when presumably if they'd been building up EU-bound stocks for a while they'd have known about a problem on this scale sooner? Or is this all completely normal and expected when manufactureing a new product in such large quantities?

Is it not just possible that the EU have tried to get this done on the cheap

This is also being discussed on the radio here (France), that the relative amounts “ in the pot” from the EU are small compared to the U.K. and especially the US.

Also, the EU expected a “homegrown” vaccine to come out of the pot and this hasn’t happened.

Afp news agency @afp
#BREAKING AstraZeneca's two UK plants making Covid-19 vaccine must share production with EU under contract drugs firm signed with Brussels, officials say

Looks like the EU may ramping up demands.

I also think the schools announcement today and it being tied to vaccine progress isnt coincidence and is in part the uk playing silly buggers.

Theyve just got a scapegoat if the schools dont open on the 8th now.

Well the facts as presented by a brexiteer British media are ...

Fixed that for ya.

The actual facts are...

There’s a contract. One party says they’re fulfilling the terms, the other disputes that, the rest of us can’t possibly say one way or another as the full contents of that contract are not in the public domain.

The bigger question here is: how do we solve a global problem (to vaccinate everyone against Covid) when the worlds population is organised into self-interested nation states with widely varying levels of wealth, power and capacity?

If the relatively wealthy and well connected countries of the U.K. and the EU can’t work out how to cooperate on this, I’m not optimistic about hopes to vaccinate on a global scale.

It’s true, we haven’t seen the AZ contract.

It’s not believable to think they would negotiate a contract that says: we promise to deliver a set amount of vaccine on an exact date no matter what. They will have gone into much detail about what the EU €300m was for and not assumed any risk for a new and uncertain product they cannot control.

The EU gave them three fewer months and is. Paying significantly less per dose than the UK. The extra £££ the UK gave was not profit for AZ but to go into a more robust supply chain and to mitigate more risks. The early UK commitment and extra money also served to “prime the pump” and subsidise the rest of the world, many of which are much poorer.

Well the facts are that the EU ordered late, paid less than others and is threatening to sue a pharmaceutical company who is making a not for profit vaccine. Classy!

This sums it up for me @MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

You don't need to 'fix it' for me TheKeatingFive. You do you

Or is this all completely normal and expected when manufacturing a new product in such large quantities?

I think this is normal when producing something like a vaccine. I don't think it's as simple as manufacturing a product.

Many many moons ago I was involved in research using plant tissue cultures and they were a bloody pain in the arse to deal with. Even the slightest (imperceptible) variation in media nutrient mix or agitation speed would cause the cells to behave differently. It must be a complete nightmare to have to deal with 000s of litres of culture.

[quote Sakura7]**@Dongdingdong What?

The EU have one position, AZ have a different one. Why are you jumping to conclusions and assuming the EU are the ones at fault or lying?

I know a large section of the British public takes great joy in blaming the EU for everything and anything, but some of us prefer to wait for the facts.[/quote]
Says the person saying that the EU are definitely in the right....

The AZ ceo has laid out the AZ position.

He didn't do it in 'the brexiteer uk media'. He did an interview for an Italian newspaper. Which is consistent with what the uk media has been saying. It seemed reasonable.

We do know that the EU Carevax contract says and that there is room for AZ to argue their side if the AZ one is similar. Its certainly not as simple as the EU seem to be making out.

Now we await further developments. On the balance of what we know from the last couple of days, wider information and other details, im not inclined to take the EUs claims at face value by any means.

I find it hard to believe AZ wouldn't have exemption clauses written in to cover their arses.

I do think this is in danger of stepping up another level now.

It’s not believable to think they would negotiate a contract that says: we promise to deliver a set amount of vaccine on an exact date no matter what

But who says it is that?

There may have been a clause about contingency plans in the event of delays that the EU think is not being honoured.

I don’t know, but really, unless we have the contract in front of us, it’s one party’s word against the other.

Says the person saying that the EU are definitely in the right

I categorically have never said that. Show me where I have.

My point continues to be, in the absence of seeing a contract, we cannot know if the contract has been breached.

I read on another thread that the AZ vaccine is going to save the world. It's true that nations will serve their own interests first, it's the nature of humanity. But the world needs for the world to be vaccinated - it's the only way back to a normal life. A not for profit vaccine is going to give that to all the places that can't afford pricey alternatives. That's such an amazing thing and it seems do utterly distasteful to make threats against a company who are making that happen.

Jane Merrick @janemerrick23
EU Commissioner Stella Kyriakides steps up row with AZ: “Not being able to ensure manufacturing capacity is against the letter and the spirit of our agreement. We reject the logic of first come, first served. That may work at the neighbourhood butcher’s but not in contracts.”

'spirit of the agreement'? What a strange thing to say about a legal contract. That suggests that the two parties have different interpretations (and that one thinks that the contract has stiffed them in the small print) and they want to challenge the legality of the contract.

Could be wrong, but stating the spirit of the agreement isn't about AZ its about playing to an EU audience who are unhappy with the EU.

It reads like an arse covering exercise.

You don't refer to a spirit of the agreement if you think the legal text is fully on your side.

@TheKeatingFive

Think about it. AZ made a contact with the UK first. AZ cannot give away things the UK contracted for in a subsequent contract with EU without renegotiating the UK contract. That did not happen.

Each contract and each supply chain is completely separate. There is no mechanism to load balance between the two contracts/supply chains.

After being cheap and slow the EU would like to grab the UK’s supply, but there is no way their contract promises it. If AZ tried to do it anyway, they would be in breach of their UK contract.

And the EU can't argue that contracts matter if they expect to trample all over the one AZ signed with the UK.

each supply chain is completely separate. There is no mechanism to load balance between the two contracts/supply chains

That’s the type of thing you couldn’t possibly know without having seen the contract.

There may well be provision for interplay between them. Which goes both ways.

Or there may be other clauses that the EU don’t feel are being honoured, which may be right or wrong, we just don’t know.

Mark Urban @markurban1
EU ups the ante with AstraZeneca - "moral, societal, and contractual responsibilities" to deliver says @SKyriakidesEU "we reject the logic of first come, first served", dismisses AZ argument that UK deliveries result from earlier commitment

EU admits AZ signed a contract under 'best efforts' provisions by @SKyriakidesEU argues that EU's early cash commitment leaves AZ with no excuses for failing to ramp up production levels

asked if contract with other vaccine providers under 'best efforts' provisions risks similar supply problems - @SKyriakidesEU says the companies must 'stick to our advanced purchase agreements, that guarantee capacity' [seems that all contracts may indeed be 'best efforts']

^ raises eyebrow....

So UK has gone for guaranteed delivery contracts (and appear to still be behind on deliveries). In contrast the EU has gone for best effort contracts.

And thats the core of your clash.

Brexit is an absolute mess and a long term disaster HOWEVER the EUs mishandling of the vaccine procurement and distribution must be heaven sent for Boris.

Taking this one thing on its own, the UK have handled vaccinations far far better than the rest of Europe

It’s true to say that everyone, including the UK has acted in their own self interests.

Without some chance of gain for their own people, why would the UK have paid so much, and taken so much risk? Ultimately the whole world gains from this, not just the UK, early UK funding got the ball rolling much more quickly than rounds of consensus with the EU would have. Yes benefits will trickle down rather than be a Big Bang, but the trickle has started sooner and everyone benefits from riding in the UK’s slip stream.

Also, other vaccines are available, Pfizer. And J&J’s should be ready soon which only needs one dose.

There are a lot of advantages to a little competition and backing more than one horse.

@miimblemomble

The bigger question here is: how do we solve a global problem (to vaccinate everyone against Covid) when the worlds population is organised into self-interested nation states with widely varying levels of wealth, power and capacity?

If the relatively wealthy and well connected countries of the U.K. and the EU can’t work out how to cooperate on this, I’m not optimistic about hopes to vaccinate on a global scale.

I am getting the impression we are doing well there too, certainly by comparison to the EU according to this from The Spectator: "There is also the EU's €500 million (£440 million) pledge to Covax – the global initiative in charge of securing collective vaccine supplies for lower income countries, who may not be able to procure their own. To put this donation into context, Britain – a nation with a population just over a tenth of the size of the EU – has pledged £548 million from its aid budget."

I do think this is in danger of stepping up another level now.

I agree. I think if the EU are suggesting that they are entitled to vaccine produced in the UK and bought by the UK government, the UK government will become involved and the EU will become even less popular in the UK.

My point continues to be, in the absence of seeing a contract, we cannot know if the contract has been breached.

We don't know what is stopping us from seeing the contract. Maybe for commercial reasons neither side can publish it.

But the AZ CEO has tried to explain the position of his company whereas I have seen nothing from the EU about their actual legal position, just general veiled threats.

www.bfmtv.com/amp/economie/entreprises/vaccin-le-laboratoire-moderna-appelle-l-europe-a-passer-commande-rapidement_AV-202005190212.html?__twitter_impression=true

It seems that Moderna warned the EU in May that delays to orders would result in delays to orders being delivered.

That also raises the question of whether there may be similar issues with Moderna to come.