EU threaten to cut off vaccine supply to the UK 3

[EasterIssland]

Thread 2 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4200959-EU-threaten-to-cut-off-vaccine-supply-to-the-UK-2?pg=1

@Wakeupin2022

Not sure of already mentioned here!

It seems the UK does not have a defacto export ban despite the EU constantly saying we're bannig exports

The 700k AZ doses In Oz, in fact came from UK!

Not one single dose of AZ has been exported from EU to Oz.

Thank you that is interesting

amp.smh.com.au/world/europe/more-than-700-000-astrazeneca-doses-secretly-flown-to-australia-from-britain-20210407-p57hcl.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

I can see why its been kept quiet.
But at end of day az uk factories are privately owned companies and can ship to who ever.
I expect they were originally meant come from eu and uk supply chain stepped in.
However it won't play well in Ireland which shares a land border with UK.
But we said we share with Ireland when uk vaccination completed ie our excess doses.
This is not our doses to send if that makes sense this is Australia order that beeb paid for.
Something the eu don't understand just because a factory operates within the block doesn't make it state controlled.

www.politico.eu/article/vaccine-export-block-europe-coronavirus-astrazeneca/

Looking at data released a last few days from Chilean university who examined the effectiveness of the sinovac vaccine since use from February.
Chile have vaccinated around 93% of its population, if I havent read wrong as it had to be translated to english. Turns out Sinovac only gave 3% protection single dose after 28 days. So basically its pants, akin to having no protection. And people are still vulnerable to covid. However if the 2nd dose was given 2 weeks after. This increased to 52% but would take around 4 weeks after administering 2nd dose. 27% protection was achieved 2 weeks after 2nd dose... I'm not sure if this data is peer reviewed but it's out there to dicect. But it does make me wonder if the the EU are thinking of using sinovac on a mass scale. Would it be feasible to be able to vaccinate 2nd doses on such a tight turn around after 1st dose. Knowing that's what's needed to get max protection. Otherwise whats the use if people are still so vulnerable to getting covid if they can't vaccinate 2nd doses quick enough . There are far better vaccines offering better protection available. But it does make kinda make sense now why sinovac never revealed trial 3 data so openly as other makers of the covid vaccine trials did.

Easter absolutely its the choice if AZ how to manage their contracts!

The EU are not exporting and are clearly keeping all AZ doses manufactured in the EU, despite whether the have been funded and paid for by others.

Whilst I do sympathise with Ireland, they are an EU member and the EU have chosen not to export AZ.

I don't think the UK govt should have kept that quiet. It's a good thing for a government to show they respect the contracts AZ signed. Also Australia is a commonwealth country, so the UK should be aiding them where possible. Iirc Australia was donating a lot of vaccines to countries hit badly with Covid, so it seems even more important to make sure Australia gets what it ordered.

I don't think the UK govt should have kept that quiet. It's a good thing for a government to show they respect the contracts AZ signed.

It's really not for the UK govt to comment on the business of a private company.

It is quite possible they didn't even know about the export. They are not blocking exports and AZ don't really need to tell them how they manage the contracts of other customers.

The EU feel that they are entitled to more supply than anyone else so have decided to interfere with the principles of free trade.

An interesting read of the contract situation:

theconversation.com/did-the-uk-outsmart-the-eu-over-astrazeneca-vaccines-157926

So the UK did not contract better in the sense that it has a right to the vaccines it is obtaining; under the law governing the EU contract it does not. Rather, it seems that the UK contracted better in the sole sense that its contract was more expensive to breach.

That is partly a product of different legal systems and their styles: European contracting parties tend to see contracts as a tool to build up trust and long-term relationships. Anglo-American legal culture tends to see contracts as a way to avoid needing trust at all.

I sure know who I would want to deal with in future, and it is not the UK.

[quote Baileysforchristmas]www.politico.eu/article/vaccine-export-block-europe-coronavirus-astrazeneca/[/quote]
I feel outraged on Australia behalf.
The eu have officially stolen their 250k doses they blocked however in baffled how they could be redistributed and used without enacting article 122.

I'm not against uk sending vaccines to Australia at all.
I can distinguish between their privately ordered and paid for az order and uk excess vaccine stock which will be shared and probably between commonwealth countries and covax when uk done with Ireland receiving top priority.

My understand is once America completed its vaccination programme then they will be willing to export.
We already seen thread above saying serum India asking state assitance because export ban means they potentially losing business.

Can anyone answer why we have 17million modern ordered a measly 500k delivered after the eu who placed their orders later?
Moderna is most expensive per dose vaccine.

I think we have 20million pfizer due to from eu to complete uk 40million orders.
Would eu block pfizer thats our main worry.

Wonder when j and j and novavax be ready for delivery to UK.

Thats shocking levels of efficiency for sinopaharm which think Hungary ordered and used.

Gibbs that article just very poor and actually doesn't bother with published facts even from the EU.

Did I really just read that European contracting parties see contracts as a means to build up trust and relationships 😂😂😂

Yes I am sure that AZ have throughly basked in those super cordial relationships with the EU.

I hope you are right quentin re travel restrictions being lifted even domestically in Spain, as the situation is getting quite desperate for some. They are not in a position to get through another summer without many guests.

Childish and shitty as that all is... and I’m not for one minute pro-Russian, the question is whether or not it’s safe and effective

By coincidence I am just back from meeting dd's friend and mother for a walk, she is Russian. Her mother is CEV and 74 and is NOT having the sputnik vaccine. Nor is her father. Why? Because even they don't trust it. Her local doctor told her to wait until the end of the year to see what happens, they trust him over the Russian government. The uptake across the whole of Russia is very low, it is not because it is such a great vaccine - it is because confidence is very low.

People were saying on another thread why are Russia selling vaccines when they haven't vaccinating their own population, what they haven't factored in is the resistance and fear of the vaccine across Russia. They have never trusted their government and are not about to start now. So there are surplus vaccines no one wants.

@GibbsGibbsGibbs

An interesting read of the contract situation:

theconversation.com/did-the-uk-outsmart-the-eu-over-astrazeneca-vaccines-157926

So the UK did not contract better in the sense that it has a right to the vaccines it is obtaining; under the law governing the EU contract it does not. Rather, it seems that the UK contracted better in the sole sense that its contract was more expensive to breach.

That is partly a product of different legal systems and their styles: European contracting parties tend to see contracts as a tool to build up trust and long-term relationships. Anglo-American legal culture tends to see contracts as a way to avoid needing trust at all.

I sure know who I would want to deal with in future, and it is not the UK.

Lots of international deals get signed under English law precisely because of the protection it provides the customer.

That article is rather poor incidentally and relies on the false premise that countries (or blocs) make vaccines rather than private companies who happen to locate their factories in these countries. The EU has not been "generous", vaccine exports are nothing to do with it.

How can anyone in their right mind think the EU is being generous.
It has blocked the export of vaccines that have been bought and paid for under a legally binding contract just because it is sulking that it didn't get organised.
I call it throwing their toys out of the pram.

@Mumzieeee

Looking at data released a last few days from Chilean university who examined the effectiveness of the sinovac vaccine since use from February. Chile have vaccinated around 93% of its population, if I havent read wrong as it had to be translated to english. Turns out Sinovac only gave 3% protection single dose after 28 days. So basically its pants, akin to having no protection. And people are still vulnerable to covid. However if the 2nd dose was given 2 weeks after. This increased to 52% but would take around 4 weeks after administering 2nd dose. 27% protection was achieved 2 weeks after 2nd dose... I'm not sure if this data is peer reviewed but it's out there to dicect. But it does make me wonder if the the EU are thinking of using sinovac on a mass scale. Would it be feasible to be able to vaccinate 2nd doses on such a tight turn around after 1st dose. Knowing that's what's needed to get max protection. Otherwise whats the use if people are still so vulnerable to getting covid if they can't vaccinate 2nd doses quick enough . There are far better vaccines offering better protection available. But it does make kinda make sense now why sinovac never revealed trial 3 data so openly as other makers of the covid vaccine trials did.

Thanks for posting that I’ve been keeping an eye out for any discussion of Sinovac or sputnik.

If those figures are even in the right ballpark, poor Chile. I’m going to guess they didn’t lift restrictions with those figures in mind. If that was all that was offer globally then it might have had some use I suppose, but people need to know what they’re dealing with. I wonder what figures they were given when they purchased it.

I don't know where that data has come from on Chile. They've only vaccinated first dose about 38% of the population and many of them too recently to have full immunity: ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/chile. Worth bearing in mind that none of the vaccines are going to offer good immediate immunity, the human body doesn't work like that, it needs a few weeks to build up.

That said, Brazil had some fairly poor results with Sinovac on their testing, so I'm not sure I'd trust it. Even if P1 variant was an issue, that's all over Chile now: www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55642648.

Sino - 3% efficacy with the first dose as it turned out
You would have as much chance of protecting yourself against covid as you would eating fresh air.

I don't think the EU is being generous. I think the EU expects a fulfilment of their contracts, just like everybody else.
Why does everybody here ignore that the EU also ordered and payed for vaccines and that AZ is in breach of contract?

On a different note: People go on and on about feeling so sorry for the poor, holy AZ whose breach of contract the EU is not allowed to criticize because they offer a not-for-profit vaccine, but apparently the UK contract threatens AZ with massive sanctions for underdelivery of said not-for-profit vaccine? Talk about double standards ...

@GibbsGibbsGibbs the UK is also behind on AZ vaccines, we just don’t shout and scream like the EU

Gibbs

Just some comments.

1/ the UK has not received what it was due from AZ.
2/ the UK was not just a customer for AZ. They actually supported getting the vaccine to manufacture
3/ the UK funded 3/4 sites that EU are laying claim too.
4/ the UK sites were not contracted to supply the Initial AZ doses to EU. That is the 1st 300 million.
5/ oz and others also have contracts with AZ. If the UK AZ sites had not exported then OZ would have received no doses.
6/there is no obvious contract breach
7/ the EU turned up late to the party
8/ Despite what the EU thinks, their contract is no more important than anyone else.
9/ the EU has stopped AZ vaccine exports. So why should they receive imports?

Lots of international deals get signed under English law precisely because of the protection it provides the customer.

Yes, indeed. There's a reason the International Dispute Resolution Centre is on Fleet Street.

(It's a while since I've worked there, but they used to have superb chocolate biscuits.)

I know the Russian vaccine has been debated here today.
Slovakia isn’t happy with the quality of Sputnik. Russia has requested to get sent them back
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-08/russia-demands-vaccine-shots-back-after-slovakia-doubts-quality

@MRex. I have managed to find a interpreted english version of the study that made the news in france. Its much better than my interpretation. But I'd prefer to give a better more comprehensive cover of what was said. As I said before I had a bit of problems deciphering what was said but found this news, that is more or less says what I was saying but obviously I got a few very minor details wrong not 52% but slightly higher but not by that much. The first dose of other brands of vaccine on the market out performs sinovac by a long shot. So any country using it must really think on not lifting lock down so soon as Chille has learnt.. Singapore is not using sinovac even though they have ordered from them purely because they wouldn't disclose more data on trial 3. Indonesia on the other hand are seeking to use sinovac to plug the hole from the ban on AZ vaccine.

www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210406-first-covid-vaccine-shot-alone-not-protective-chile-study. Heres it is sorry was meant to link on my post

@Wakeupin2022

1. It would be really helpful if there was more transparency about what the UK actually receives, otherwise it gives the impression that the UK is so far ahead with vaccinations because AZ delivers to them as promised to the detriment of others.

2. The EU also contributed, though obviously to a far lesser degree. When it came out in January that AZ sold the not-for-profit vaccine to South Africa for a far higher price per dose, the reason given was that "other countries contributed to research and development" - so AZ accepted the EU's contribution as sufficient to agree to a lower price.

3/4) The contract between the EU and AZ names certain plants - if they now say that these are not available at all because for the next few months they are needed for the production for the UK, that's at the very least a contract under false pretenses.
About the initial doses, a) I don't think this point is all that clear, and b) Halix is most certainly not part of that discussion as it's not in the UK.

5. Where does it say that the doses for OZ have to come primarily from the EU?

6. Just because the EU apparently neglected to foresee suitable remedies does not mean that there is no breach of contract.

7. Considering the actual signature of the contract, that's a matter of opinion.

8. Nobody ever said that - but it isn't less important either, so shortfalls in production should concern all customers proportionately.

9. It's not true that exports have been stopped completely.

Lots of geeky statistics about vaccine numbers in the second half of this article: www.politico.eu/article/eu-misses-coronavirus-vaccines-target/