I cannot even imagine how one would draft that, nor why one would even bother. A contract that has delivery conditional on a technological development doesn’t use a best efforts clause for that. Much more straightforward to make the delivery…conditional on the development.
5.4 would appear to allow AZ to use any site in the world to supply, while requiring Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture in the EU (which includes the UK for purposes of 5.4) to do so.
That doesn’t really support either the EU’s contention, nor the AZ idea of dedicated production lines. That kind of clause is usually in there to require local investment and spending has some level of priority.
2 Likes
I see that James Turner QC agrees with my addendum
2 Likes
Christ, there is a lot of crap analysis around, and I am surprised to see it from a QC.
The warranty says there are no contracts that interfere with the obligations - but if the obligations are governed by a Best Efforts clause, there is no interference.
Loads of people scanning for a clause that confirms their prior bias.
One thing is clear, some shoddy legal work here. That is two points now where the agreement doesn’t really appear to support either side’s interpretation.
2 Likes
I read those two, with two different definitions of the EU for the purposes of two different clauses, and really just thought that some people needed a slap. What an absurd consideration for delivery of a vaccine during a pandemic.
2 Likes
I still don’t understand why the vaccine doses that are now being produced in the EU should not stay in the EU, shouldn’t the UK have been producing for the UK and EU for the EU from the start? Then we wouldn’t have the problem?
I thought we did this to help each other out, for the common good and not to fight each other.
2 Likes
I think the point is about approvals. So AZ were under a BRE obligation to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses within the EU (ie, not the UK) (5.1). But the EU designated where they were happy for AZ to manufacture the Vaccine (which for this purpose only included the UK) - my interpretation of that is that this would allow AZ to supply the EU from vaccines manufactured at the UK sites without the need for prior approval (because for the Optional Doses and Additional Doses - paras 5.2 and 5.3) there is no obligation on AZ to use BRE to have those manufactured within the EU.
Paragraph 5.4 does go on to say “If AZ is unable to deliver on its intention to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses and/or Optional Doses under this Agreement in the EU” (which for this paragraph includes the UK) - this would suggest that it was contemplated that AZ could manufacture Initial Europe Doses in the UK, but it wouldn’t displace AZ’s primary obligation to use its BRE to manufacture them in the EU (exc UK) as set out at 5.1.
Bit of a mess though, I agree. Also interesting to note that this agreement is with AZ Sweden. The UK’s agreement could (is likely to) be with AZ UK.
2 Likes
Firstly, it is not clear that the AZ plant in Europe has been producing that long. Certainly, from now forward it seems absolutely reasonable.
But to be blunt, the idea that a company should hoard vaccines to meet possible demand for a jurisdiction that has not yet and might not have approved a vaccine is both immoral and unethical. Globally, there are multiple jurisdictions that have been willing to use the AZ vaccine for almost a month.
4 Likes
If that’s so come up with some logical arguements to support that.
Mrs is flying to the UK on Wednesday, very urgent family matter. Perfect timing with all this shit going on. Not even sure they will even let her into the country the way this is going (she’ll isolate, before anyone gets mad at her).
3 Likes
It just blew my mind that the preferred point of manufacture could somehow be an issue for aspects other than security of supply - which is not actually well-defined in the agreement anyway.
2 Likes
2 Likes
That is disappointing, really. Efficacy of 66% is viable, but not great. Another high efficacy, easy to store vaccine would have been an enormous help.
2 Likes
I think it’s precisely for that reason. Stepping back from it I would think the UK sites are a fall-back. AZ has characterised the situation as allowing it to service the EU requests for vaccines from its stock manufactured in the UK subject to its obligations to the UK. It could effectively direct its reserves (if any) from the UK without needing to get approval from the EU but its primary obligation to the EU was to manufacture the vaccine in the EU (not UK). I think this makes sense. Obviously the EU are now wanting AZ to stop using its best endeavours to manufacture its Initial Europe Doses solely from EU sites and to draw on reserves AZ may have from its UK manufacturing sites. The EU are effectively demanding that AZ disregards para 5.1.
2 Likes
A lot of people on social media saying that the 66% figure is slightly misleading as it is successful in reducing hospitalisations and deaths (also can be stored in a regular fridge)
Does this make a difference?
https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1355144011275784204?s=20
1 Like
EU position, at least represented by press reporting of Von Der Leyen’s statements, seems far more aggressive than can be supported by the contract. ‘Crystal clear’ is absolute nonsense, as is the limitation of the BRE clause to the development process - it is absolutely explicit in the contract that it isn’t.
At some point, the EC is going to have to start explaining why it allowed months to elapse before making a purchase commitment, but they seem fairly desperate to avoid that.
2 Likes
The logic is simply that vaccines saves lives. There the earlier people can be given vaccines the more lives can be saved. As the ability for virus to spread is diminished.
The EU already has 32M doses. These doses it is not using. As it has not approved the vaccine. It might not approve it.
Therefore it is more ethical for supply to go to where it can be given.
1 Like
Yes, that was what produced my initial astonishment. Under the agreement, if AZ had manufactured the vaccine at the Frederick (Maryland) plant, it would have to provide assurances that it was not possible to supply that amount from one of the EU facilities in order to satisfy the EU order.
That is nothing short of madness.
Key thing becomes something we don’t know yet - effect on transmission.
Not discarding the J&J one, by any means. Just had higher hopes, particularly because at a guess, that is the one I will have earliest access to. Pfizer and Moderna are going to be scarce and allocated to high-priority people (plus assholes from Vancouver who pretend to be…) through the summer. Astra-Zeneca deliveries are behind the EU in priority as we also placed our order late, so probably won’t be meaningful until a second round of vaccinations. But we have one of the largest initial orders of the J&J.
2 Likes