EU suing AZ

[Baileysforchristmas]

Do you think it’s a good idea to sue a non profit vaccine producer in the middle of a pandemic? Especially when it’s in the contract the EU can’t sue for late delivery

www.politico.eu/article/belgium-was-warned-eus-astrazeneca-contract-lacked-teeth-documents/

I think UVDL and her team are trying to save face but I think even the British Government wouldn’t sue a non profit vaccine producer in the middle of a pandemic. Not only that other pharmaceutical are watching, this will damage the EU’s reputation for future contracts

It’s very depressing and quite unbelievable really. It’s all about the deaths” caused” by late delivery completely ignoring the deaths “ saved” by the humongous endeavour to get a working vaccine within 12 months in the first place. It is so grasping and ignorant.
By the same logic, how many deaths has Sanofi caused by not creating a working vaccine at all,
Macron himself thought there would be no working vaccines for 18 months or so and yet they are suing one of the vaccine producers for exceeding this timeframe and delivering vaccines in less than 12 months. It’s bonkers

Obviously we are not privy to anything like enough information to really know for sure but the decision by the EU to take legal action strikes me as really odd and uncommercial.

Kate Bingham and her team approached the issue of vaccines from a really commercial and pragmatic position and rightly so in my view. The EU's approach at this stage seems to be anything but.

Do you want to be known as the partner who says "how can we help make this work?" Or the one that says "we'll sue you if you're not careful"? Seems pretty obvious to me.

As you say @MRex I'm really struggling to see what outcome the EU are hoping for from litigation.

(name changed due to some IT issue )

You should expand your reading material.

Yep, agreed...

The thread subject of itself is certainly worthy of debate, the issue here of course being the EU Commission, headed by UVdL, vs. AZ.

My only comment on that is that I think we'll only ever know the answer to who is being unreasonable when /if we see unredacted copies of contracts.

Sadly though the thread is already heading off onto that tangent best described as being deja vu all over again:

"M" word thrown in on page 2,

Apparent lack of understanding over the areas of EU competence vs. the areas of national competence,

Apparent lack of up to date info on the state of play with various european national vaccination programmes, including the current now increasing and fairly widespread use of the AZ vaccine.

Just to add, AZ are not a 'non profit vaccine producer' they are a 'global profit-making pharmaceutical business who are selling this single product at cost

This.
Of course the EU should take legal action.

EU doses by product including current unused supply are recorded here: qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab.

France, Germany, Italy and Sweden for example have significant numbers proportionally of Vaxzevria that they've received but have not been used yet, totalling many millions of doses. (I can't mention Norway nor Portugal because their reporting is unusual.) These may be held back for second doses, although then you might expect to see similar for other vaccines and clearly not all EU countries have that strategy.

@Mintjulia

The EU can try to sue but they will only succeed in making themselves look even more ridiculous than they already have.

I've been dismayed by their behaviour, they have been solely responsible for damaging their own reputation.

Totally agree : they are an embarrassment.

@LemonRoses

AZ have failed to deliver on a major contract and put lives at risk. I think EU are right but think more importantly, AZ should be releasing IP to allow global production. They are definitely not some poor small business nor a charity. Their profits have doubled during pandemic and are around the three billion mark.

This all the way.

It seems somewhat perverse to me to sue for non-delivery for a product that you don't want anyway...

AZ should be releasing IP to allow global production

Definitely not. It needs to be produced to proper standards. People are nervous about having it as it is. If you release the IP anyone could be producing it. It could be produced under licence but I assume that is happening anyway.

As an EU citizen and resident I am very pleased that the EU is taking Astra-Zeneca to court. A legal process will hopefully once and for all elucidate who did or didn't do what and when.

The EU can try to sue but they will only succeed in making themselves look even more ridiculous than they already have.

I've been dismayed by their behaviour, they have been solely responsible for damaging their own reputation.

Embarrassing to who? Population of UK 66M or EU population of 447M.
I’m one of the 447M. They have every right to take legal action. It was a business arrangement.

It’ll be interesting to see how long the court case will take, I hope it will give answers and put a line under this once and for all but I can see it going on for months

@poppycat10

It seems somewhat perverse to me to sue for non-delivery for a product that you don't want anyway...

That sort of comment proves the point made upthread and I know was made on the previous iterations of this thread that people need to increase the scope of their research/reading...

Only one data point but I'll offer it - Cease work 25th April just over 3.7 million dozes of AZ administered in France....(by way of comparison the Pfizer administered total was just over 14.3million)

www.has-sante.fr/jcms/p_3244305/fr/covid-19-la-has-recommande-d-utiliser-le-vaccin-d-astrazeneca-chez-les-55-ans-et-plus

covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker/

@MRex

EU doses by product including current unused supply are recorded here: qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab.

France, Germany, Italy and Sweden for example have significant numbers proportionally of Vaxzevria that they've received but have not been used yet, totalling many millions of doses. (I can't mention Norway nor Portugal because their reporting is unusual.) These may be held back for second doses, although then you might expect to see similar for other vaccines and clearly not all EU countries have that strategy.

Could it be that they use more of a 'holding back for second doses' strategy with AZ because they have less confidence in the deliveries arriving as scheduled for the second doses?

I mean, they'd be happy using every current drop of Pfizer in stock because they've seen time and again that Pfizer will deliver the amount needed for the second shot in good time. That confidence doesn't exist with AZ (especially if it's all about to get spicy in court...)

I don't think any government or company globally would hesitate to complain if a company's "best efforts" were only 30% of the promised delivery.

@poppycat10

It seems somewhat perverse to me to sue for non-delivery for a product that you don't want anyway...

Such an idiotic comment coming from someone who clearly has no knowledge of what is happening in the EU.

I have no problem with the EU taking them to court. That is what legal processes are there for.

@NewLevelsOfTiredness that’s fine as long as they are used and not thrown away, AZ has a shelf life of 6 months.

Denmark is shipping some of theirs to Germany - upon request. They're not being binned.

That’s good to know

I don't think any government or company globally would hesitate to complain if a company's "best efforts" were only 30% of the promised delivery.
Please outline the equivalent action with Sanofi delivering 0% of doses.

It will be an interesting court case that's for sure but it may ultimately push up the cost of the AZ vaccine if the cost of defence lawyers are added to the production cost of the vaccine.

It’ll definitely have the effect of no pharma companies ever again producing a vaccine at low cost/ zero profit. What a huge disincentive that absolutely nobody would blame the pharma companies for.
Pretty outrageous really

EU is a rules-based organisation.
Emotions (sainted AZ doing this non-profit) don't come into legal contracts.

It's not like the lawyers EU employs could be sensibly re-deployed at vaccine centres...

Objecting to EU pursuing the matter thru courts is objecting to Rule of Law, imho.

It’s short sighted though and pointless imo. AZ also under delivering on U.K. contract too but U.K. not suing. U.K. has lawyers too but different approach

@lljkk - it isn't about "sainted AZ", but whether "best reasonable efforts" have been made within the constraints that it's a new and extremely complex product to make, with a new supply chain being trained up and occasional shortage of raw materials. To believe AZ has not made it's best reasonable efforts implies that they have not been trying. Their licence actively incentivises them to end the pandemic, they can make profit only when the pandemic is over. I have not yet heard from anyone a plausible reason why Astrazeneca would not be making their best reasonable efforts to meet the contract. If there isn't even a possible plausible reason, then it certainly can't be true.