Godwin’s law, I claim my £10.
The EU obviously wants what it has paid for and why not ?
Because others have paid for stuff too, earlier than the EU and where their regulators have already given approval. If the AZ APA is like the Curevac one then I can’t see that the EU has a particularly strong argument here.
There were tensions at the beginning. Accusations in France that Sanofi would priortise the USA causing Sanofi to refute the claims (these claims didn’t come out of thin air though) the fact that Sanofi hasn’t an authorized vaccine yet is niether here nor there. The thing is is that these Pharmaceutical companies get lots of aide and tax relief and when it comes to giving back they just don’t, it should be a massive public concern particularly when you see the prices these companies charge.
Pfizer for example is taking the piss what with reducing the quantity supplies by 61% and charging for 6 doses a vial of 5 doses (not to mention the exorbitant price they charge for a dose and 2 doses are needed) fucking hang the cunts.
This shouldn’t become a foriegn affairs debacle it should be all countries putting pressure on these shitty companies to behave correctly and with responsibility. They are almost as bad as financial giants!
So it is O:K. for AZ to fail to meet their obligations to the EU as long as the UK get all they want ? Maybe I would feel that way if I still lived in the UK but I would like to think that I would prefer a more fair and just solution that would not simply stir up friction between Nations.
What are the pharma companies obliged to?
I would think they are obliged to the normal business process. Who placed the order first according to process should get it first. If you order later and try to use political pressure to get it first, how is that playing according to rules?
Once again you’re putting words in my mouth. Where have I said that?
What makes you think that AZ is failing to meet its obligations? Has the UK threatened to restrict supplies of contractually agreed orders meant for other countries? Really curious to know if you think it has - if so, what’s your evidence?
That’s stupid. The company should take responsibility for the orders it accepts or face consequences. It should be able to calculate what it can logistically supply imo. A contract is a ‘promise’ in exchange for money and we are talking public health here not who get’s their luxury product (yaught, airoplane, mansion … ) first.
For companies, I agree to the rule of contracts. I am not aware what is the hoo-ha about this EU and UK tension on supplies of vaccine but to me, if the UK placed the order first, then the companies are obliged to fulfill their order first unless otherwise agreed by relevant parties. Those who come later cannot be playing other cards to force the issue.
The issue appears to be that AZ have created two separate supply chains for handling UK and EU orders. The UK order went in first, so has had more time to work through supply chain issues ahead of it giving AZ clearance. The larger members of the EU agreed a deal with AZ a month later than UK, but before signing the deal waited while it brought the smaller EU countries on board. This led to another 2 months passing. AZ are now saying that they are unable to supply the EU with what it had agreed to earlier within the specified period because of supply chain problems in the EU chain. EU appear to believe that some of the vaccine already produced within the EU chain should have been put aside for their use and has been exported, possibly to the UK. Therefore, AZ should be willing to use some of its other facilities to help make up that shortfall.
There is obviously a lot of noise floating around at the moment, so it is unclear what the actual position is.
Not an expert in contracts, maybe someone else with contractual laws in the EU and UK know better. At the end of the day, I believe in the rule of law and in this case, law governing contracts. If the company had somehow agree that just because the vaccine is produced in the EU, then the EU should get priority, then so be it. But if the company had not and is obliged to fulfil the orders according to who orders first, then it does not matter where it is produced. If it is a matter of the company not fulfilling the order because of logistical issues, then the EU can separately take it up as a legal route but if it is not legally right, then it cannot ethically force a company to comply just because you are in my region. Then it is as good as an unfair export control. That is my opinion but I have no knowledge of how contracts in such cases are viewed so not going to debate this with you guys who have better knowledge on the ground.
Order? It’s a contract!
If the UK placed an order/contract for xx million they get xx million. If someone else comes along and wants xxx million the company if they can not deliver should responsible enough to say no we can only supply xx million. The company is responsible yet the make up shit.
I want my money back!
Thats what I said. If the UK ordered first, they get it first. If they messed up EU’s order, then if it is legally enforcible for compensation etc, then the EU should. But the EU cannot be forcing the company to send to EU what is rightfully going to the UK.
The company is obliged to fulfill the contract they signed. Surely?
No it’s not what you said, the UK and EU contracts should be fulfilled at the same time. This 1st come 1st served is nonsense!
how is first come first served nonsense? If you place the order before me and the company can only fulfil one order and I force the company to fulfil my order, that is right? Maybe thats how it works in the EU then, not how I do business here. If of course they cannot fulfil my order, I reserve the right to sue them and penalize them but I cannot force them to route your order to mine. They screw up by not fulfilling my order, that does not make it any more right for me to force them to screw your order to fulfil mine. So the EU should sue them.
Anyway I have made my point, nothing else to add. Ultimately I hope everyone gets vaccinated whether you are from EU or UK or Africa or Asia or the USA…regardless of all these obligations contractually, legally or humanely.
Now you are putting words into my mouth but I should have expected that from you. All I said was that AZ were not fulfilling obligations to the EU which is true.
The UK has not had any problems with deliveries has it so why would they need to restrict supplies to other countries ? The EU has asked for reports on where the deliveries are going so they can see where things have gone wrong. There has been a suggestion that some deliveries destined for the EU have been redirected elsewhere so obviously they want to know if this is so. It quite probably is not but transparency should not be a problem to any parties involved.