I liked your post, but like those in here flying off the handle and thinking they know what’s written in a contract they’ve never seen, I think we should wait on the analysis of the contract by experts before making assumptions about what should happen (your last paragraph).
2 Likes
I do find it mildly amusing that the Force Majeur clause includes epidemics…
Force Majeure. Neither the Commission nor the Participating Member States nor AstraZeneca shall be held liable or responsible to the other Party or be deemed to have breached this Agreement for failure or delay in fulfilling or performing any term of this Agreement when such failure or delay is caused by or results from events beyond the reasonable control of the non-performing Party, including fires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, embargoes, shortages, epidemics, quarantines, war, acts of war (whether war be declared or not), terrorist acts, insurrections, riots, civil commotion, strikes, lockouts, or other employment disturbances (whether involving the workforce of the nonperforming Party or of any other person) acts of God or acts, omissions or delays in acting by any governmental authority (except to the extent such delay results from the breach by the non-performing Party or any of its Affiliates of any term or condition of this Agreement. Defaults of service, defects in equipment or material or delays in making them available, labour disputes, strikes and financial difficulties may not be invoked as force majeure, unless they stem directly from a relevant case of force majeure.
4 Likes
They didn’t put Brexit in there. Could it be considered an act of war? 
If only we had a legal expert who has read the agreement who could provide comment.
1 Like
Yes, where is @Barnestormer 
5 Likes
3 Likes
Well, yeah, but not pandemics.
1 Like
True enough - but it includes such things as “shortages”…haha. “Umm…really sorry EU but we can only deliver you 30%. It’s a shortage.”
[Yes, I know it doesn’t apply to things within AZ’s control!
Interesting though, how much control does a Pharma company have about how much yield any particularly manufacturing site produces?]
Data coming from South Africa is increasingly alarming. The B.1.351 has the same transmission upgrade the UK variant has, but potentially higher fatality and ability to evade antibodies.
Vaccine nationalism aside, I am increasingly of the opinion that the best use of available vaccine today would be to send it to South Africa. Maybe Brazil too, that variant is also scary, but less likely to evade vaccine and is already in the US.
5 Likes
Funny comment in that vein - there is a lot of steady learning and tuning to optimize yield from the organic processes. It is notable how many plants there are in Belgium. Apparently their rich brewing tradition gave them an early lead at the outset of the industrial era and has made it a center for that kind of production.
Pretty sure this undermines the EUs argument
I suppose that would/could depend on which end of pharma you are in
Further to your J&J comment, the three trials produced significantly different numbers. The US showed 72%, Brazil showed 66%, South Africa 57%. The reporting is taking an aggregate average. But the hypothesis is that the variance is partially attributable to the variant population.
1 Like
No, that’s simply about supply of raw materials. So that if AZ needs supplies from 3rd parties in order to manufacture the vaccine but those 3rd parties’ supplies are limited because of separate agreements it has with the EU (or other vaccine producers supplying the EU) then they will not be deemed in breach if they cannot then make the doses required.
2 Likes
I can see the ethical argument for not stock piling, when others have already approved. I don’t see the ethical argument once it has been approved, that the UK should continue to get the full supply despite production shortages overall. It might be a contractual one (or not), but it isn’t an ethical one.
Not even sure the ability to spread the virus/mutation is dimished that much by AZ looking at the asymptomatic numbers (? that’s a question btw - doesn’t that mean they can still infect others if they are asymptomatic ?).
But tbh, personally I could see the moral point if rich countries like Germany would more or less just scrap the AZ vaccine distribution altogether, leave that to poorer countries who need it more, continue to drive the new infection numbers down and vaccinate the highest risk groups with the mRNA ones, while building up production capabilities. Probably a tough sell politically in any country though.
Overall I’m not sure though if we should all be comfortable to set a precedent here, where the lesson governments / regulators will learn is that it’s most important to be the first / fastest to approve a vaccine.
5 Likes
I don’t think it does. The ‘such competing agreements’ refers to agreements entered into by the Commission. It protects AZ from the consequences of the EC inadvertently disrupting AZ’s supply chain. There is no language there that would suggest it applies to third party agreements.
2 Likes
Do we know that that is not the issue though.“Due to production issues” is what AZ have said.Couldn’t that be lack of raw materials.
My understanding is that they’ve had lower yields. There might also be an issue with the amount of raw materials as well but I haven’t seen any indication that this is because there have been other demands on those materials due to agreements the EU has with 3rd parties.
2 Likes
Our Government is still insisting that widespread vaccination will have be in place by September. Analysis by The Economist is suggesting mid-2022. That is a fairly stark difference. If we get to June with minimal progress, I think the government will probably fall.
2 Likes
Its a shame that such division in the world with everyone only looking after their own interests has made it impossible for an organisation like WHO to direct the COVID response. To direct the response, they would need to be given greater powers, but with how many countries have blatantly ignored their advice since March, its clear that will never change. I think it would have been nice if the WHO had the powers to control the vaccine rollout across the world. I know I’m living in a fantasy land.
5 Likes