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/

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

Putting words in my mouth there.

I said the EU is justifiably angry that their orders are not being fulfilled, particularly given the investment made. I also don't think the EU is unreasonable to request paperwork on vaccines being exported from EU plants to third countries (this does not equate to a ban as some media sources are claiming).

We do need to see the contract to know exactly what has happened, but given the EU's strong reaction and their desire for the contract to be published, it seems they're confident in their position.

I find it a bit strange that so many posters are lapping up what the head of a pharma company says as absolute truth, without even considering the other side.

If Astrazeneca agree to publish the contract and they are clearly in the right, fair enough. I just don't think an interview with their CEO is sufficient grounds to declare that the EU are in the wrong.

Apparently the EU have asked AstraZeneca today for the contract to be made public so hopefully that should help to clarify things.

EU countries threatening to sue must surely be on the basis that, in one way or another, they don't believe AstraZeneca met its contractual obligation to make their 'best effort' to fulfil the target order - not because the target itself wasn't met. Without all the details we can't say whether they have a case. On the surface though there doesn't seem to be any evidence that AstraZeneca have done anything wrong.

The alternatives are either that multiple countries misunderstood the basic terms of the contract and thought the target was a guarantee, or that the CEO of AstraZeneca actually did make a legally binding guarantee and then lied about it on the record. Both of which would be so monumentally stupid I can't believe they'd actually happen.

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

EU might not be legally allowed to publish. And AZ may be tied by content of BOTH their contracts to the EU and UK.

The Uk are not particularly transparent on contracts like this and they have been very keen to not reveal numbers of vaccinations theyve recieved.

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.

But you've got the facts, @Sakura7 - this post from @MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously sums it up neatly:

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.

I'm not sure what more you want

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

I totally get that it's normal to have hold ups in the manufacturing process. My question is, would there have been an expectation that they started building up a stock of supplies reserved for the EU in, say, December, in anticipation of EMA approval, so that they'd be ready to roll out as soon as they got the green light? In which case if they were going to have a massive shortfall they presumably should have realised before the end of January that there was going to be a problem. However, if there was no expectation that they'd have large numbers of vaccine already stockpiled and ready to go, it's understandable that they're only aware of the issue now.

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.

Ha, same And yes they were!

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

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

@TheKeatingFive Either you missed that RedToothBrush's post was clearly in response to Sakura7, or you forgot to name change

I’m not name changing. But believe whatever nonsense you want, no skin off my nose.

@TheKeatingFive

Translation of the French article (from May):

Every day that passes without having an order from European governments, it is a day when the launch of the vaccine in Europe will be delayed", warned on BFMTV the CEO of the Moderna laboratory whose experimental vaccine against the coronavirus has delivered encouraging results .

The American biotechnology company Moderna, which announced encouraging results for its experimental vaccine against the new coronavirus, on Tuesday called on European states to place orders quickly, delivery times varying "from 6 to 9 months".

^"Where I need help from European governments - which I have not yet received to date - is to place orders", Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, informed our network. . "It takes about six to nine months between the moment we receive an order and the moment we are able to provide the vaccines; we have to buy the raw materials, the machines, hire employees and train them," a- he said.
The effectiveness of the vaccine can be judged in October-November
He added that "every day that we go without having an order from European governments, it is a day when the launch of the vaccine in Europe will be delayed". The effectiveness of this experimental vaccine, "we will know in the fall, once we have done a Phase III (study)", detailed Stéphane Bancel.^

Thanks for this thread OP - really useful to have a link to the whole interview.

@Dongdingdong

Eh, the contract maybe?

As for ordering late, South Africa placed an order on 7th Jan, five months after the EU, and delivery is imminent. Why was this order accepted and fulfilled so quickly when the company is facing such significant supply issues with existing customers?

@psychomath Great post.

And no I'm not TheKeatingFive!

[quote Sakura7]**@Dongdingdong

Eh, the contract maybe?

As for ordering late, South Africa placed an order on 7th Jan, five months after the EU, and delivery is imminent. Why was this order accepted and fulfilled so quickly when the company is facing such significant supply issues with existing customers?

@psychomath Great post.

And no I'm not TheKeatingFive![/quote]
I read that South Africa was prioritised because they held vaccine trials for AZ/Ox, it was part of the deal.

[quote Sakura7]**@Dongdingdong

Eh, the contract maybe?

As for ordering late, South Africa placed an order on 7th Jan, five months after the EU, and delivery is imminent. Why was this order accepted and fulfilled so quickly when the company is facing such significant supply issues with existing customers?

@psychomath Great post.

And no I'm not TheKeatingFive![/quote]
See that has a different issue though.

The EU is making a point of going after the UK made supplies, which they may not have legal recourse to. Its tieing the contract with AZ direct to the UK as if the UK are in control of AZ.

If SA are getting vaccine ahead of the EU thats between AZ and the EU that should be fuck all to do with the UK. And where it gets interesting is where has the SA vaccine been made?

All the complaint is about the UK getting priority and threatening UK supplies of Pfizer rather than asking questions about other nations and their supply.

Why?

South Africa is getting its supply from the Serum Institute of India (which as we know is the biggest vaccine manufacturing centre in the world) so has nothing to do with how we are getting our supply. IMO.

I don't really understand this argument that the EU was three months too late to order. The UK started AZ vaccinations in Jan and in the Dutch timeline AZ was scheduled for around the beginning of March. So if the other EU countries are similar then thats only a months difference then the UK timeline.

The AZ CEO makes its sound like they had less time to sort out the kinks of production because the EU waited three months. But to me it doesn't seem like there is that much of a difference. I could be wrong.

And I can understand the EU's frustration. 60% less is a lot. And I think they have every a right to demand insight into this. Especially if it's true that vaccines manufactured in the EU were sent to the UK to cover the UK quota. These are manufacturing facilities that would not have been set up without the EU order I assume so why is this EU facility covering the UK shortfall and not the far large EU shortfall?

There should be six vaccines available in the EU from around march so hopefully this will all sort itself out in the end.

Unless Sakura7 and TheKeatingFive have spent months faking diametrically opposing views on lockdown as a deep cover operation, in anticipation of the day the EU would get into a legal pissing contest with AstraZeneca, so they could express similar views on this thread while pretending to be different people... I'm pretty sure they are in fact different people

I can't find corroboration for that comment about South African supply, so may be wrong.

I can't find corroboration for that comment about South African supply, so may be wrong.

Yes I shouldn't have posted that without it being confirmed by more reliable sources. Apologies.

@psychomath

The U.K. had already, before the pandemic, started establishing the infrastructure as part of research into a vaccine against SARS and Ebola so the Oxford vaccine was able to piggyback on this .

The no profit agreement is based on the cost of production. In the U.K. higher costs of production were agreed for a variety of reasons, if things had gone badly they would no be being castigated for paying too much . The EU seems to be implying that AZ are supplying the U.K. , and the US incidentally, because they paid more per dose and therefore making an underhand profit but the price is higher because the cost is higher than the EU were prepared to invest.

I think AZ are justifiably very cross about this allegation when they have agreed to supply the world at cost .

The EU specified lower production costs so that they could pay a lower price per dose . €330m is pretty low for the production levels needed. By all accounts they drove a very hard bargain , which is fine but if you do that you have a lot less margin of error if things go wrong.

It pains me to say it because I really loathe this government but in this case they have, possibly unwittingly, actually gambled and won.

@Waspnest

I can't find corroboration for that comment about South African supply, so may be wrong.

Yes I shouldn't have posted that without it being confirmed by more reliable sources. Apologies.

I was questioning my comment not yours!

Ha ha! Sorry I'm becoming paranoid on MN!

We’ll have to wait and see. There will have to be a compromise somewhere even if legally AZ don’t have to. The bullying tactics of the EU look terrible though, why make it so public? Why not just deal with AZ quietly without the big threats? Why did a German newspaper make statements about how ineffective it was before checking facts? It has put the EU in a very bad light.

The EU are making it public because they are getting absolutely slated in some EU countries with some being so desperate they are buying the Russian Sputnik vaccine which has not been tested to internationally recognised standards. So they are doing what they normally do which is bully, bluster and lay the blame elsewhere

Not making themselves look good in the eyes of the world are they .