AZ should have ensured they could deliver before promising to do so
3 Likes
Exactly!!!
They can’t be doing stuff like that but i doubt if the intention is/was to carry that out.
I agree that second wave started November/December time. However it’s only now for some countries it’s peaking. (Or recently peaked)
For me AZ went for good intent. The problems are well documented.
The orders they could deliver was a best case scenario. Doing their best to supply during a pandemic.
It should not be viewed in terms of I ordered 50M, I should expect 50M.
Unless it’s the UK of course. For ethical reasons.
2 Likes
So it’s ethical to supply a region that has not approved it first ?
So they started producing for the UK only at the minute the UK gave approval? The point is there doesn’t seem to be a problem with the UK supply. For ethical reasons, apparently. Or because of production being in the UK should only be for the UK, unless vaccines are made in the EU then obviously it’s for the UK as well.
3 Likes
That’s perverse!
Don’t forget the logistics of getting all those vaccines to the EU.
It’s not like AZ planned for issues at it’s EU site.
It’s also worth remembering more lives will be saved by it going to those in the UK.
So yeah I am fine with my position.
2nd wave in Ireland was in October,we shut up shop for 6 weeks as a result.
If the contract says it will deliver 50m doses then that is what should be delivered,or at least fairly close to it.You don’t deliver 40% of it.Would AZ accept that from companies who supply them.Could they operate with that level of uncertainty.
1 Like
Your being unethical!
Supplying the country with greatest medical need with medical supplies is not unethical.
I would argue many businesses are currently receiving 40% or less of their orders. Even in sheltered NZ we can’t get certain things.
We’re all in the same boat mate!
1 Like
I very much doubt the UK would be happy if things were the other way around.
2 Likes
What percentage of their order are the UK receiving.Genuinely don’t know,but if it’s only 40% then i don’t see how the EU can complain.
I realise it’s crap for everyone. But I don’t think it’s unfair to say the UK ranks near the top of the shit pile.
That has been the governments fault.
But the UK has basically 2 main suppliers for it’s vaccine. The EU has half a dozen. It is endemic with variant which the EU absolutely does not want to spread further.
If the EU approved the various vaccines it changes the picture a bit. But I am all for saving lives. Irrespective of nationality. Put simply more lives can be saved where the vaccine can be given.
2 Likes
So, I’ve just read the APA and here are my thoughts. It should be said that some key parts are redacted which isn’t particularly helpful to understanding the complete picture.
Firstly, the phrase used in the agreement is “Best Reasonable Efforts”. This is defined differently to the Curevac APA. The Curevac APA did specifically set out that it was subject to the contractual obligations owed to existing purchasers, the AZA one does not.
Secondly, “Best Reasonable Efforts” applies to far more than just development of the vaccine. It applies to production and delivery as well. It also applies to AZ manufacturing the Vaccine “at sites located within the EU (which, for the purpose of this Section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom)”. At Schedule A the contract lists two sites in the UK but they’ve been redacted. Presumbly its Oxford and Keele though.
The other key element that has been redacted is the time for delivery. Time is not of the essence. AZ are bound only to use their “Best Reasonable Efforts” to deliver by “approximately” then the date is redacted but ends in 2020. There is then a further instalment for Q1 2021 and a final instalment by the end of [redacted]. Not sure why they needed to redact what is presumably 2021, unless it isn’t, which would be very odd. But yes, time not of the essence, only an obligation to use Best Reasonable Efforts to deliver by an approximate date. Of course, the vaccine is only now set for approval today in any event.
The other key paragraph is 13. These are Representations and Warranties given by AZ. At 13 (e) it states that AZ “is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;”, my emphasis.
This is where the EU are coming from. The problem here is that it will be accepted that production of the vaccine is not a precise science and there will be finite number of doses. It would be absurd to suggest that commitments to other purchasers could not impede the complete fulfillment of AZ’s obligations under the Agreement if the supply chain for delivery of the Initial Europe Doses was to be fulfilled from the entire amount of doses manufactured by AZ in the EU.
The only way that AZ could possibly give such a representation/warranty would be if AZ specified dedicated supply chains specific for the EU (as they are reported to have done for the UK). Unfortunately, there is a full sentence that has been redacted at Schedule A where this may have been set out so I cannot say whether that is the case or not.
If it isn’t the case then the interpretation would be that the EU can claim a right of priority over vaccine doses that AZ has already agreed to develop, manufacture and deliver to other parties in pre-existing agreements.
That would be commercial suicide for a pharma company. Still, this interpretation would support the EU’s position.
Unfortunately, key passages have been redacted so its impossible for me to say whether there is more to it. It could be that AZ are comfortable with relying on the wriggle room afforded by Best Reasonable Efforts that applies across the whole of their obligations but if I were them I’d want a bit more assurance that they have clearly dedicated supply chains within their various sites for the UK and the EU otherwise things could get pretty uncomfortable for them.
Edited to add
An important distinction to make about paragraph 5, which strengthens AZ’s position and weakens the EU’s.
Paragraph 5 deals with manufacturing and supply.
5.1 states that "Initial Europe Doses. AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU for distribution, and to deliver to the Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorization, as set forth more fully in Section 7.1, approximately [redacted] 2020 [redacted] Q1 2021, and (iii) the remainder of the Initial Europe Doses by the end of [redacted].
5.4 states “Manufacturing Sites. AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within the EU (which, for the purpose of this Section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom)…”
So AZ is actually under an obligation to use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses (ie those meant for the EU) within the EU ie not the UK. AZ obligation to use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture at sites within the EU and the UK only applies for the Vaccine generally and not the Initial Europe Doses.
This may be where AZ can claim that the UK manufacture is ring-fenced from any claim to it for any of the Initial Europe Doses.
3 Likes
While there are others who have lost jobs and not in a position to be furloughed I think this is out of order. Just ripping the country off. Having said that my son, who has a small " Tech" business tells me he knows of many companies that are taking the mickey out of the furlough scheme. He only employs 4 people and al lare still getting paid without going n furlough despite an obvious drop in business.