EU threatening to cut off supply of vaccines to UK

[Iremembertheelderlykoreanlady]

Because they've not got enough apparently (despite the fact that they've got a shit load of AZ stockpiled because they've mostly stopped using it)

This is really starting to piss me off now, and has someone who is due 2nd Pfizer jab in 8 weeks in starting to worry I won't get it!

They're threatening to stop supply to USA too.

Wankers

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ursula-von-der-leyen-threatens-cut-off-covid-exports-uk-b924652.html

Adonis is also against an export ban.

In which case there is no case whatever for an export ban - the way to enforce a contract is through the courts in a normal way

This was after the EC saying (tweeted by a well-known Irish journo):

European Commission spokes: this is not about banning exports of vaccines, this is about making sure companies deliver according to their contracts. "It is about making sure we are in a position to receive the vaccines that are foreseen for Europe"

@Iremembertheelderlykoreanlady - I know how you feel. I had initially scheduled Pfizer dose two for the day before a day off. I was knocked sideways by dose one. I brought it forward to the first available slot - last night - because of the increasing uncertainty of supply.

If I feel ghastly all through my shift today then I will be holding UvdL and Macron personally responsible. There may be photos and dart-boards...

Health is not normally something EU countries collaborate on Baileys - and one of the reasons why there have been issues with procurement has been that this is not something the Commission normally deals with and to launch it during a pandemic, well, perhaps it's amazing it managed to secure as many as it did. It had to negotiate across 27 different countries, with different budgets and different national priorties.

There is collaboration, and probably will be more in future, but working across completely different health systems in the middle of a pandemic is difficult to say the least. The problem the Commission are focusing on is supply.

Plus, the argument is NOT with the UK. The argument is with an anglo-swedish company headed by a Frenchman and this company has conflicting contracts with different customers.

I also said I spoke about France. I have no idea about the Italian healthcare system. Every country is different.

Imagine we are back one year to last March, with Europeans and the UK in full lockdown. Imagine someone said to us all then that we could have the AZ vaccine. Imagine they'd said that there is a tiny chance of blood clots, less than in the contraceptive pill. Or we could wait a year for a different vaccine which doesn't have that miniscule risk. We all would have bitten their hand off to get access to AZ and get out of lockdown and that terrorising fear of Covid which we all had last March. The world has hundreds of thousands dead and we have the ability to stop that getting worse and all VDL, Merkel and Macron can do is carp about this amazing gift that's been dropped in their laps.
People are so ungrateful!

Can anyone answer a couple questions for me please.
At this meeting and vote Thursday do each member state have equal voting power so 27 states have 1 vote each.
What is the threshold to decide to block.
Other articles seem suggest eu can overrule Netherlands/ ireland/ Sweden and Belgium if they were pro uk stance.

This offer of vaccines to Ireland and turned down.
Cant find any concrete evidence this happened.
If we did we would have offer vaccines unilaterally not after we done uk and give them our spares.

Its 2 very different offers to say we send 2million next week to Ireland.
Or once we done completely in UK then we share.
Time is the important thing here.
Lots in ni/ uk government and lots people in uk think we should share with Ireland .
Its important to share now not later.

www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-uk-government-should-consider-offering-vaccines-to-the-republic-1.4473383

Every member state apparently could have brought separately but they all chose to buy as a block.
Some ordered extra doses after initial order made however clause says thye can only access those once all eu received complete orders.
Theg can order from different vaccine companies if ei haven't ordered from them however those won't be approved by the ema.

Every member state has its own regulatory authority and as we seen can choose ignore ema rules by imposing random age restrictions or pausing.
Every member state is responsible for its own rollout and healthcare so some recent issues Italy has had is technology

Germany few weeks ago only had 1 vaccination centre offering az in Berlin.
If the supply asvib stocks are with the member states its wrong for those member states to blame the EU commission they not responsible for logistical aspects of rollout.
However I do accept the eu commission may have damaged individual member states confidence in az but I also acknowledge a few member states leaders and thier regulatory authority also played a part in damaged confidence too as thye undermined the EMA.

I wish all countries in Europe well with their vaccination programmes .

I would also like AZ answer some questions and be more transparent .
As its all a bit puzzling some of the things.
Ie orders from India. Netherlands factory that produces for no one. The missing 250k Australia vaccines in Italy.
We need some clarity.

When we consider that EU commission have never been involved with the health of the continent, nor procurement then one has to wonder why they ever felt qualified to take the risk of securing the right vaccines that were so vital and so important? And for so many millions of people. Did no one stop and question whether this was a good idea, the right move.

Was it arrogance that they felt they could do it easily?
Was it desperation to prove how efficient and wonderful they are in a crisis?
Was the opportunity to use the pandemic to further integrate/show the citizens what the EU can do too good to miss, even knowing it could end in failure?

Even if we consider the best intentions, that they wanted to ensure every country had enough vaccine (which they failed to do anyway) it was always a massive risk to take politically. Surely they would have been better to encourage countries to organise their own vaccines, with the larger countries helping the smaller ones if needed rather than taking on the whole thing?! After all the EU is not the US. It is not a super state, it does not have the infrastructure to do the same.

It was a massive fatal gamble, done for political reasons that will ricochet across the bloc for years to come. One of those moments in history that no one ever forgets. Compounded by the thuggish and unedifying way it has been handled ever since by those at the top of the commission.

It is truly amazing that we have so many successful vaccines, and I certainly didn't imagine it was going to be possible. A triumph of science and collaboration.

And we take drugs that have side effects all the time, we decide that the benefits outweigh the risks. But is it really important to know what the risks are and how to deal with them! And AZ, in part because their procedures seem to be a bit problematic and they are not being very transparent are coming under pressure. This combined with over promising customers is problematic.

I totally agree we should be delighted it exists, but that is not to say we should be uncritical about the potential risks or understand more about which groups of people it is most effective on and why. And it seems to only be the UK media that is refusing to acknowledge that there is anything less than perfect about AZ. Why is this? AZ has a trust issue and this is not just the nasty EU meanies jealous of Brexit.

From the US

www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/23/world/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-cases
U.S. Health Officials Question AstraZeneca Vaccine Trial Results

According to federal officials, an independent panel of medical experts said the promising results announced by the company on Monday may have relied on “outdated information.”

In a highly unusual statement released after midnight, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said that the data and safety monitoring board, an independent panel of medical experts under the National Institutes of Health that has been helping to oversee AstraZeneca’s U.S. trial, had notified government agencies and AstraZeneca late Monday that it was “concerned” by information the company had released that morning.

The institute urged AstraZeneca to work with the monitoring board “to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible.”

AstraZeneca did not immediately return a request for comment early Tuesday.

@usuallydormant

It is truly amazing that we have so many successful vaccines, and I certainly didn't imagine it was going to be possible. A triumph of science and collaboration.

And we take drugs that have side effects all the time, we decide that the benefits outweigh the risks. But is it really important to know what the risks are and how to deal with them! And AZ, in part because their procedures seem to be a bit problematic and they are not being very transparent are coming under pressure. This combined with over promising customers is problematic.

I totally agree we should be delighted it exists, but that is not to say we should be uncritical about the potential risks or understand more about which groups of people it is most effective on and why. And it seems to only be the UK media that is refusing to acknowledge that there is anything less than perfect about AZ. Why is this? AZ has a trust issue and this is not just the nasty EU meanies jealous of Brexit.

From the US

www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/23/world/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-cases
U.S. Health Officials Question AstraZeneca Vaccine Trial Results

According to federal officials, an independent panel of medical experts said the promising results announced by the company on Monday may have relied on “outdated information.”

In a highly unusual statement released after midnight, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said that the data and safety monitoring board, an independent panel of medical experts under the National Institutes of Health that has been helping to oversee AstraZeneca’s U.S. trial, had notified government agencies and AstraZeneca late Monday that it was “concerned” by information the company had released that morning.

The institute urged AstraZeneca to work with the monitoring board “to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible.”

AstraZeneca did not immediately return a request for comment early Tuesday.

Thats not how it was portrayed in British mainstream media. Until the fda approve as America won't be using az. They have around 30 million doses in backstocks I gather sent from Europe.

The issue at end of day is eu needs vast amount vaccines fast.

The other issues is az has over promised and undelivered.
They have various contracts with EU, UK and other countries.
They are having manufacturing issues.
Its a vaccine they can't magic up more doses at speed.
So how can EU ensure they deliver without letting other countries down.
Has EU filed legal action against AZ yet?
Have they said no to Australia request for papa new guini which needed those vaccines weeks ago.
Its a mess creating drama and rowing with other countries ie Australia or UK won't solve the EU problems.
There are no quick fixes.

Well @Itsalonghaul that's your perception. I'm an EU resident and citizen and I think on balance, it was the best thing to do. Vaccines are procured and given to EU nations proportionately. Yup, lots of issues, lots of learning, lots of things that could have been done a hell of a lot better but not worthy of the vitriol and lies coming from sections of the UK press and on mumsnet.

I'm not sure many governments in the northern hemisphere are going to get medals for how they dealt with the pandemic frankly and once all the metrics are totted up, it is likely to be the UK that is rated among one of the worse performers.

In fairness to the EU on procurement they were reliant on at least one success within the block to be successful as the US buying power was always going to overpower with private pharmaceutical companies. With all the success of the UK buying of vaccines without AZ the uk looks good on paper.

Iirc the EU waived their right to sue AZ as part of their contract. Can't remember where I read that though.
Few governments come out of this pandemic looking good, that's true. No one on MN or the UK press is saying that the UK government haven't made some spectacularly poor decisions.
Wrt death rates though, unless there were globally agreed methods of recording deaths (and for testing whole populations in each country) I'm not totally convinced that the UK is worse than anywhere else - we are densely populated, made lots of early mistakes but are doing well with the vaccination roll out. Other nations did better with early lockdown but not so good with their vaccination. It might all end up much of a much.

All the fuss over export bans and vaccine hesitancy is distracting from what should be the single important issue - WHY are AZ factories in the EU having so many more problems than elsewhere in the world. Britain has sent experts from here to try and up production but what has the EU done to help, something that is also part of their contract?

What I see is political game playing while the European people suffer - and no pharmaceutical company will ever again offer to do a no profit contract, so the world suffers.

Who funds the German and French political parties and who loans them money?

Ah ha! I knew I'd read a very simple interview with Pascal Soirot earlier this year, but I surf so much I hadn't bookmarked it.

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

I think I have based most of my opinions on what he said here (that deosn't equal blindly believing all he said).

European officials are furious that AstraZeneca has been able to deliver its UK contract in full while falling short on its supplies to the EU. Both Ms Merkel and France's Emmanuel Macron had spoken with Boris Johnson on the issue, which will be discussed at the summit on Thursday

Entirely their fault. They invested late, they bought late, they set up production facilities late. They did not alter their approvals to meet the emergency, therefore vaccine approval and production site approval has taken three times as long as ours. We have sent our experts to enable approvals earlier, but they have stuck to their standard systems. They have proved to be inflexible in the face of emergency. This is entirely of their making. We are effectively 9 months ahead in terms of final supply. UK as not had deliveries of AZ from EU, their only leverage is Pfizer, and that would be unethical (possibly illegal) due to second dose requirements.

It is ultimately an international system... and we are working with colleagues in America, on the Continent, in India to try to develop as many of those vaccines as possible

Yes, EU. The rest of the world is manufacturing at pace, hopefully it will enable further deliveries to the block, because you failed to act quickly enough.

@alreadytaken

All the fuss over export bans and vaccine hesitancy is distracting from what should be the single important issue - WHY are AZ factories in the EU having so many more problems than elsewhere in the world. Britain has sent experts from here to try and up production but what has the EU done to help, something that is also part of their contract?

What I see is political game playing while the European people suffer - and no pharmaceutical company will ever again offer to do a no profit contract, so the world suffers.

Who funds the German and French political parties and who loans them money?

On point that seems to be lost by EU

Is Oxford AZ is a series of private collaborations.
Yes its anglo swedish company
But then they have private partner companies in each continent to produce their vaccines.
Ie serum institute in India.
I assume halix is a Dutch contractor
That the factory in Belgium is probably Belgian.
If other partner companies are having less problems then the issues at the 2 European factories the partner companies have to shoulder some of the blame.
We know our uk site took 3months to iron out any issues.
We think uk possibly invested money with halix .
We defiantly know we sent our vaccine task force there to help.
Also apparently we sent a team to Belgium the last few week.
The uk is trying to help I don't see how we could have been more cooperative.
Whats the issue with these European firms.
Is it experience/ expertise gaps lack of investment ie not enough money not enough staff . Delays cost private manufacturing money its not in their interest see delays.
Why is Europe not In serious talks months ago with head of halix and Belgian company doing a kate bingham and say we know you are struggling what can we do to help what do you need?
Rather than stamping their feet they just want vaccines.

I wonder who partnered them up?
Did az hand-picked these contractors.
Or did the EU suggest them? To boost EU manufacturing capability and keep as many vaccines in Europe.

I fear its not advice they want as they can't accept their flaws they just deflect and blame mode.
They want vaccines sent from uk factories.
That would be political suicide for bojo.

[quote donewithitalltodayandxmas]@usuallydormant yet the fda approved yesterday with great results? [/quote]
The FDA did not approve yesterday. AZ simply announced their Phase III clinical results. And there are already concerns about the data.

nypost.com/2021/03/23/astrazeneca-may-have-used-outdated-info-in-covid-19-vaccine-trial-us-says/

Even without this new problem, FDA EUA would have two to three weeks away.

@usuallydormant sorry typed that wrong have asked to be deleted
Thought it was great results reported and fda were close to approvinG ?
What I don't understand is why they Don't pass vaccine on to someone who has approved it or it will take them longer rather than sit on them

@MissConductUS cross posted

@usuallydormant its in the uk Press today as guess thats the first time they have had the story as its only just being mentioned

I never thought of the EU as malicious or our enemy even though some people wanted to present it that way. Leaving was just a business decision and not personal.
Now though they are like the abusive partner who turns nasty when you say no to them.

vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab

Don't know whether this has been linked yet, but a good table to look at is the by country delivery and percentage distribution by vaccine type.

"The FDA did not approve yesterday. AZ simply announced their Phase III clinical results. And there are already concerns about the data.

https://nypost.com/2021/03/23/astrazeneca-may-have-used-outdated-info-in-covid-19-vaccine-trial-us-says/

Even without this new problem, FDA EUA would have two to three weeks away."

Admittedly I am not a scientist, but how outdated can the data be on a vaccine which started clinical trials in August 2020?

@LastTrainEast

I never thought of the EU as malicious or our enemy even though some people wanted to present it that way. Leaving was just a business decision and not personal. Now though they are like the abusive partner who turns nasty when you say no to them.

Same - I actually thought that they were a benign organisation and was sad to leave

I was under the impression that the EU has its supply contract with Astra Zeneca AB whereas the UK has its supply contract with Astra Zeneca UK. Two entirely separate legal entities.

Then there's the question about which company owns the vaccine in the Halix plant? If it's AZ UK then you can understand the reluctance to ask for EU approval if it believes that the EU will block exports that it may have already contracted to supply outside the EU and for which it has already been paid.