AZ - EU contract published

[Davros]

Breaking news on BBC

Going from what the EU say.

sushi doesn't have anything at all to back up the outraged comments, sounds very, very silly - leave them to their romantic notions where the UK are the baddies in the fairytale re-telling of "The Commission that sat on their hands for three months".

I've just seen the press conference the EU have given and clearly state they will be inspecting what leaves EU to go to UK.

Our government are directly accountable to us and would have all sorts thrown at them if they didn't deliver the vaccines they've promised.

Who IS to blame at the EU? that's the problem and always has been the problem with the EU.

The individual countries were ordering themselves and then the EU stepped in to negotiate better terms etc - missing the boat by three months and hoping the French vaccine would come up trumps for them.

They didn't get involved to help step up production of AZ at supply lines in other EU sites until approving it (today!) and just thought they'd hop on the UK delivery stream that had been tweaked out during the last three months.

Is that what the Sky interview mentioned here was about?

@SushiSoozie

Well, you were saying that everyone you disagreed with was a tabloid reader and were asking others to provide legal expertise to bolster their opinions. So it's reasonable to ask what expert opinion informs your own views. Saying 'I think they are right' doesn't cut it

No, you misunderstood. What I said was people were repeating what they have read in the papers thinking that it was gospel. I did not do that.
As you can imagine, EU papers are reporting it very differently. I'm sure if you read some you would see that the news is based on perspective, not hard fact.
Just because your papers tell you that the EU are big bullies out to steal your vaccines, doesn't mean its actually what is happening. Do you think Ursula Von Der leyen is just making it up when she says the EU has a legal claim? Are all the legal experts agreeing with her lying?

Think about it logically.

What legal experts agreeing with her? Please point us at one. I haven't seen any.

It is now clear that many of Ursula von der Leyen's statements about the contract are clearly contrary to what the contract actually says. I don't say that on the basis of things I have read in the press. I say that on the basis of reading the contract and applying my legal expertise.

To repeat what I've said before, on the basis of this contract the EU may have a case if output from EU-based factories has been sent to the UK and this has significantly impacted AZ's ability to supply the EU, but note that I say "may", not "does". However, if AZ's claim that the problem is lack of yield in their EU-based factories, the EU doesn't have a leg to stand on in my view.

It won’t just be about whether UvdL has legal experts agreeing with her (or confirming how the EU could legally interpret the contract etc) - she’s under massive pressure to do something about the vaccine situation in the EU. Vaccine centres are running out of stocks, Germany is off doing its own thing. The EU is not perceived to be handling this crisis well at all.
So this is not just about the legals, it’s about politically being seen to be doing something, being tough etc. Which looks a little hollow given the mistakes the EU have made and need to own.

"What eu media (Spain) is saying is that AZ is not giving them their 100m doses because they've been sent somewhere else. they were meant to be sent by end of Q1 but a s they're now in someone else's arms AZ can't fulfil their agreement of BRE with EU."

Yes, that's what I'm getting here I am too. Even that AZ had promised to the EU first, but that the UK offered more money.

@PersonaNonGarter

Lawyer here -

Best Reasonable Efforts apply to the obligation to ‘build capacity to manufacture 300 million doses’.

They are fitting out two EU plants. That’s a Best Reasonable Effort. I am sure AZ are sorry if that’s run into trouble, but it was a Best Reasonable Effort.

Agreed

Yes, that's what I'm getting here I am too. Even that AZ had promised to the EU first, but that the UK offered more money.

What legal basis do 'promises' have?

Britain signed a legally binding contract with AZ 3 full months before the EU. That's a fact. 'Promises' are irrelevant.

Call me a cynic, but could the contract with the failed redactions have been leaked on purpose, with the EU knowing full well that it would be instantly screenshotted and widely shared on social media? I’m sure I read earlier somewhere on MN that AZ wanted more bits redacted than the EU, which is what gave me the thought.

Or was it just a silly human error?

Even that AZ had promised to the EU first, but that the UK offered more money

AZ have strongly refuted this claim. They said the costs are the same, adjusted for local factors.

@Gwenhwyfar

"What eu media (Spain) is saying is that AZ is not giving them their 100m doses because they've been sent somewhere else. they were meant to be sent by end of Q1 but a s they're now in someone else's arms AZ can't fulfil their agreement of BRE with EU."

Yes, that's what I'm getting here I am too. Even that AZ had promised to the EU first, but that the UK offered more money.

AZ specifically denied this. And given that the UK signed with AZ three months before the EU, it would be absolutely gobsmacking if AZ promised that they would deliver to the EU first. There is certainly nothing to that effect in the contract.

Yes, that's what I'm getting here I am too. Even that AZ had promised to the EU first, but that the UK offered more money.

Which part of the contract is this promise? If it’s not in the contract it doesn’t exist

@Waspnest

Did I just see that EMA have approved AZ for use for all adults across the EU, ignoring Germany's advice to exclude the over 65s?!

Yes that appears to be true

Came up on my feed

m.independent.ie/news/astrazeneca-oxford-vaccine-approved-for-all-adults-including-over-65s-in-european-union-40027459.html?utm_source=xtremepush&utm_medium=webpush&utm_campaign=Astrozeneca+Oxford+vaccine+approved+for+all+adults+including+over-65s+in+European+Union+%28xtremepush+%2351745396%29&utm_term=notification+%23576142386_1860526464&utm_content=A

They couldn't really do anything else could they.

If they don't approve Oxford az today whilst demanding instant stock to help vaccinate their most vulnerable ie elderly than they will come across very odd.

@Dongdingdong

Call me a cynic, but could the contract with the failed redactions have been leaked on purpose, with the EU knowing full well that it would be instantly screenshotted and widely shared on social media? I’m sure I read earlier somewhere on MN that AZ wanted more bits redacted than the EU, which is what gave me the thought.

Or was it just a silly human error?

I haven't checked them all but the redacted sections we can see don't appear to help the EU's case, nor do they appear to give the EU any extra leverage to use against AZ. This feels like human error to me.

@Dongdingdong

Call me a cynic, but could the contract with the failed redactions have been leaked on purpose, with the EU knowing full well that it would be instantly screenshotted and widely shared on social media? I’m sure I read earlier somewhere on MN that AZ wanted more bits redacted than the EU, which is what gave me the thought.

Or was it just a silly human error?

I wondered this, mainly because page 11 is differently formatted to the rest of the document - it's oversized and slightly fuzzy. It looks like that page alone has been printed and scanned in (which is the proper way to redact a document).

So the doses sent from Brussels to the UK were produced at a time when the EU had not approved the vaccine and therefore couldn't have used them?

If so they are irrelevant and they do not have a leg to stand on in 'demanding them back'.

The EU appears to be arguing that "best efforts" only applied until the vaccine was been developed. Bluntly, on a quick read of this contract, that interpretation is unsustainable

I'm not a lawyer but I am a senior scientist working in Pharmaceuticals. When drugs are made for use in humans it is within a quality environment called Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). One of the things you can't do in a GMP facility is experiment and change your process, that has to happen in research and development labs. So if AZ and their CMOs are trying to improve titre that is happening in R&D labs and is development so even if you agree best endeavours only applies to development AZ can easily show they are still developing the process, that doesn't stop when manufacture starts. But there is a clear regulatory envelope around manufacture vs R&D.

human error: in the current circumstances of the EU whipping up distraction from their own incompetence reads as: headless chickens

I haven't checked them all but the redacted sections we can see don't appear to help the EU's case, nor do they appear to give the EU any extra leverage to use against AZ. This feels like human error to me.

Ok, thanks @prh47bridge.

For context can anyone point to the latest statement on how many vaccines the UK government has ordered? according to a government press release back in November it was 357 million.......

I haven't checked them all but the redacted sections we can see don't appear to help the EU's case, nor do they appear to give the EU any extra leverage to use against AZ. This feels like human error to me.

Or another way to damage AZ if all their competitors can see their costs.

@JaninaDuszejko is absolutely on the money I'd say with both of her recent posts.

@JaninaDuszejko

The EU appears to be arguing that "best efforts" only applied until the vaccine was been developed. Bluntly, on a quick read of this contract, that interpretation is unsustainable

I'm not a lawyer but I am a senior scientist working in Pharmaceuticals. When drugs are made for use in humans it is within a quality environment called Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). One of the things you can't do in a GMP facility is experiment and change your process, that has to happen in research and development labs. So if AZ and their CMOs are trying to improve titre that is happening in R&D labs and is development so even if you agree best endeavours only applies to development AZ can easily show they are still developing the process, that doesn't stop when manufacture starts. But there is a clear regulatory envelope around manufacture vs R&D.

Thank you thats interesting vaccine research trials and manufacture seems significantly more complex than most products so guess the contract itself is more complex.

Mught this and this is purely a hypothetical thought that Oxford az maybe adjusting the vaccines to ensure it works with new Kent varient or south African.
Several times our own scientists have said like flu vaccines can be tweaked to deal with different varients?

Forgive me bring up tabloid as source I hate the mirror but came up on my feed.
I know EU threatened earlier in week to block exports have they actually passed that in their law today?
If they raided the factory and see their exports log don't they know exactly how much az vaccine was sent to which country?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-european-union-restricts-exports-23409347#source=push

I am concerned about the backlash from this
After the EU stated the other day (was it yesterday??) that they would pass laws to prevent export of drugs ( & god help us maybe other things! & maybe imports from us to them too)
From read the az article about production it seems that different factories do different stages of the manufacture of the vaccine,
So are we in the UK truly independent in the manufacturing of this? Do we, for instance, need the specialized glassware for the vaccines or the hypodermics or the needles? Do we need to import anything else relating to this from the EU?
& the Pfizer vaccine - what happens if they stop it? It always concerned me that there might be a glitch in supplies if we had a longer period - If Pfizer goes back to the USA who is to say (seeing as they are in a really bad situation) that their government puts a block on export the EU will have seriously shot themselves in the foot as well as us.
The UK government also put money into development supply & manufacture from what I have read elsewhere
(ps I don't read DM but I do read about -ahem- 7 (more?) papers international & national & always follow & check links to relevant papers & do Snopes & other fact checkers too & medical articles)
& having been checking twitter feeds & following links )so sue me I am an insomniac!

@JaninaDuszejko

I haven't checked them all but the redacted sections we can see don't appear to help the EU's case, nor do they appear to give the EU any extra leverage to use against AZ. This feels like human error to me.

Or another way to damage AZ if all their competitors can see their costs.

I can't see any costs in the incorrectly redacted text. The text that has not been redacted is, in any case, clear that any costs and prices are estimated. The most sensitive thing I've come across is the term of some of the clauses, i.e. how long that clause applies.