There's another vaccine! And we've got 60 million shots! And it's made here!

[HelloThereMeHearties]

And it's effective against the new UK variant!

And it will really wind the EU up!!!

Novavax has passed its stage three trial, now hopefully the MHRA will approve it!!!

They have come out well because of a robust healthcare system that has never been completely overwhelmed. A system that is not under-funded and to which people are happy to contribute to, in the form of high taxes.

Those 'higher taxes' are mandatory health insurance and private health insurance (for hospital visits, out patient stuff)

As for the more robust it is a mix of private and public, and is often ignored (especially on MN) when talk of NHS reform is brought up as people automatically go to the US model.

It is also a mix or private and public

@cathyandclare I agree. I was responding to saying that U.K. had left the EU therefore couldn’t be included to say it’s the location of the plants not who is in the EU that refers to.

I didn’t see where it said 5.4 referred to subsequent doses and 5.1 to first dose only? Where was that?

if we had remained, we'd have been low down on the EU's list of priorities.

If we had remained, we would have funded the research and development of a vaccine produced in the UK that we would now probably be at the back of the queue for.

@Wildswim the U.K. was not sole funder of the vaccine.

@Justanotherlurker yes, it's a very complex system. A mix of public and private like you said. It serves everyone the same though, even those who don't pay the private element of it. I only have public insurance right now (due to my job and income) and I'm as covered as anyone else. Public/private depends on a lot of things but it's basically a system that works amazingly well.

It looks like the UK is included in 5.4, not 5.1, however I've no doubt the commissions lawyers will dispute that.

@FitzsimmonsMarvel

We ordered our dose three months before the EU did. Our supply has been vouchsafed. EU ordered theirs late and now there is production problems. Their response was to demand that we gave them our supply instead of keeping it for our own residents. If they want their whole order, they need to take it up with AZ. Not demand that our supply gets diverted to them to make up the numbers, leaving us without. It ain't our problem if their contract has gone tits up. And what von der leyen said, about how the AZ vaccine wouldn't be possible without them, that is a load of rubbish. They paid a smidgen of what UK and US did.

Not the sole funder no but the UK put up a lot of money upfront.

[quote FitzsimmonsMarvel]@Wildswim the U.K. was not sole funder of the vaccine.[/quote]
The U.K. also invested in the Pfizer though, didn’t it. It invested in a few vaccines.

I just think that the U.K. made a deal months before the EU did, which is the reason the U.K. production is working more efficiently, because it already had teething problems at the beginning.

Is it not because there is no such clause in the U.K. contract, diverting from U.K. to EU would be an out and out breach of the U.K. contract, whereas the EU is clearly debatable/not as clear cut.

I feel really sorry for AZ if I’m honest, seems like they’re fucked either way, all the wanted to do was produce and sell vaccines and save lives.

Interesting thread here where some MNers with legal knowledge are looking at the contract. Most seem to agree the EU don’t have a leg to stand on.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4150163-az-eu-contract-published?msgid=104135082

It's also worth noting that it's now 15:15 on the continent, and no sign of the vaccine being approved. Does anyone know what is the latest time of day the EMA might be expected to announce? And are there any further approval processes after that before any vaccine could be deployed?

Someone mentioned on the other thread that the contract with the EU is for Q1.

If that’s the case, isn’t it a bit premature for them to be stomping their feet, seeing as how we’re only a third of the way through q1?

@LouiseBelchersBunnyEars
Az have basically said that they will not be able to make anywhere near what the EU want in Q1.

From Twitter - Sky News

What does AstraZeneca contract tell us about who is right and wrong in row with EU?

Analysis by Adam Parsons, Europe correspondent

The European Commission's position remains the same - that the company has breached its contract and is dodging its responsibility for providing tens of millions of vaccine doses to European countries.

The contract has now been published, following a request from the European Commission on Wednesday.

Within dozens of pages of technical language, sources point to a few sentences that they consider crucial.

First is clause 5.4, which I suspect will be the focus of a great deal of attention in the coming days. Here the company agrees to make its "best reasonable efforts" to make doses at sites "located within the EU". But it goes on to say that, for this clause, the EU "shall include the United Kingdom".

In other words, say EU lawyers, you can't differentiate between production facilities on mainland Europe and those in the UK.

Then, later in the contract, is a heavily redacted page named "Schedule A". It lists the countries where the "substance manufacturing" and the "product manufacturing" will be done. Both sections include the UK as sites that will be part of the European Commission's contract.

EU sources are adamant the contract backs up their long-standing contention that AstraZeneca breached the contract. And they also insist that they are happy for even more details to enter the public domain, claiming that 95% of the redactions made to the document were demanded by the company, and not by the EU.

The company is likely to point to the various caveats about "best reasonable efforts" and to reiterate that the UK invested and ordered its doses several months earlier. The EU maintains that its contract makes no mention of, and does not allow, preferential treatment.

So...If India put in an order today for a few billion doses of vaccine the EU would presumably be fine for those to be delivered immediately from the EU sites and not have to wait?
They are talking rubbish.

[quote Frazzled2207]@LouiseBelchersBunnyEars
Az have basically said that they will not be able to make anywhere near what the EU want in Q1.[/quote]
Well, ask I can say is, I bet the lawyers are rubbing their hands together with glee!

This will probably keep them busy for a while

@deliciouschilli

So...If India put in an order today for a few billion doses of vaccine the EU would presumably be fine for those to be delivered immediately from the EU sites and not have to wait? They are talking rubbish.

India is the world's biggest exporter of vaccines so that would never happen.

I do get your point though. The EU are clearly using Perfidious Albion as a scapegoat for their own failure.

What's most concerning about this monumental EU cock up, is that the EU Commission won't have to answer to anyone for it.

Unaccountable. Undemocratic.

Why are the UK government saying it could not publish details of its AstraZeneca supply contract because it would jeopardise national security when the EU have been able to release their contract ?

UK are under no obligation to publish any contracts or justify themselves in any way.

We are best to rise above all this disgraceful mud-slinging and stay out of it.

@Parker231 only parts have been published and why do the uk need to ?

The EU have released extracts of their contract and have said they will provide more. If the U.K. wants to defend their position they need to do the same - what are they hiding? We are only seeing one side.

@Parker231

The EU have released extracts of their contract and have said they will provide more. If the U.K. wants to defend their position they need to do the same - what are they hiding? We are only seeing one side.

What 'position' does the UK need to show a defence for?

This is a contract dispute between the EU and AZ. The UK have rightly stayed above the fray.

@maddening

I'm sure that the EU will demand we divert the variant ASAP if they haven't had it. 🤔

🤣🤣🤣

@Parker231

Why are the UK government saying it could not publish details of its AstraZeneca supply contract because it would jeopardise national security when the EU have been able to release their contract ?

Because if the UK AZ plants end up having to send vaccine to the EU for either legal or diplomatic reasons they dont want you, me or ned down the road to ultimately know about it.

Why?

Because of the anger it would create. Possibly to the point of unrest.

The uk want to stay the fuck out of things between AZ and the EU because every day counts in their favour if it delays a change in deliveries.

This is NOT just a legal matter for various reasons. And its not in either parties interests to end up in a trade war. However from the EU's point of view they need to push back and make it as hard as possible against AZ in the hope it reaps reward because the situation is so critical and from the UKs point of view whilst they will push and stand up to it as much as possible its also down to what AZ decide to do and the Uk could yet be forced into a direct trade conflict with the EU regardless of who in law is right and wrong.

Cos that's the real world.

I personally dont think the EU will ultimately get too far with it all, but i also don't think its good for the uk on a wider level.

Also the uk don't really want the rest of the world seeing how they go about making deals. It weakens their position.

I also feel for AZ who have been stuffed by things beyond their control and a contract which isnt nearly as clear cut as it seems. And more to the point they are caught between EU and UK politics which ultimately are as important if not more so than what the contract actually means within law.