I have now understood that you don’t get any sympathy here anymore. It looks as if nobody cares anymore about your feelings or your worries. It’s all about which country makes which mistakes.
3 Likes
For vast majority of the year the criticism has been the UK, US and Sweden.
Germany was praised again and again. Put in same bracket as NZ and Taiwan. No one bashed France as far as I can remember (except maybe Flobs)
The vaccine roll out brings out many interesting and important issues. Ethics, right of choice, vaccine scepticism, vaccine nationalism, risk during pandemic.
The perception might be EU bashing (which is understandable given Brexit). But the reality is there are important and critical issues. Issues the EU has struggled with badly.
Personally speaking as someone very pro EU. I have also been surprised by political stance. I know I am perceived as bias as I have been critical. Half of that is disappointment as I don’t believe the EUs actions have aligned with the values I thought it stood for.
2 Likes
Throughout this thread and the one that preceded it on TIA the discussions have always been about the varying approaches to dealing with this pandemic. What has worked for some and what has failed for others. Where our respective political leaderships have done well, where they’ve fucked up. It is very noticeable that the engagement from many posters located in the EU has dropped off significantly since the issues have arisen about vaccine procurement. That’s regrettable because regardless of political persuasion or geographical location mistakes need to be recognised and people need to be held accountable.
It’s got nothing to do with any lack of sympathy, as you perceive, I have always approached this thread as about passing on factual information. Everyone wants to come out of this pandemic as quickly as possible and, surely, we can all learn from each other? Nobody and no country or political bloc is infallible or should be immune from criticism where justified.
Sorry to add onto this discussion with my ignorance: My only question is, based on the rule of contracts, should not Italy or EU have the right to block this shipment to OZ only if the timing of contract signing or AZ agrees to give EU shipments priority in terms of timing over OZ. If OZ’s order was placed before the EU’s one, what right does EU to block the shipment? I understand they are unhappy that they might not get the promised quantity but is AZ doing the logical thing because of limited quantity, ship based on first order first get basis. I am not privy to these information of course, so that is why I am asking.
1 Like
i am only reading half of the posts here, as you know, i won´t answer or read ignored members and I have asked so often to leave me alone or to stop quoting my posts that I am getting really tired of it.
2 Likes
and rightly so even if some countries and I would particularly point at France were over looked, yet France is not the EU.
Perhaps however the one thing you didn’t list is politics and that’s where you are lacking in your appraisals. Politics puts numpties to the forefront and what we have seen is exactly that. However you made this a pro AZ campaign and that imo is out of order, they carried on supplying 100% to the UK and cut the EU to a quarter (later back tracked to 1/3). Where do your ethics stand on that?
So did AZ!
However are you really surprised, I wasn’t. Politicians are like that and had to be seeing to be standing up for the people of the EU. Your stance completely ignores the essentials!
Seems to me you don’t understand EU in the same sense as BREXIT didn’t. It is a collective of sovriegn states and the reactions of one particularly in crisises is not the EU.
The problem for me was that you took an extremely extreme view and persisted with it without considering the people of the EU and then state ethics. Come on really?
That in defense of a pharmaceutical company (who is back tracking after attrocious communication because of 1/2 a billion people).
1 Like
Well, hoping that I don’t offend anyone’s sensitivities but yes, it depends on the contractual arrangements. The EU have now sought to effectively override any contractual obligations with the introduction of these export control measures. They have done so ostensibly to position themselves as ultimate arbiter over obligations owed under contracts to which itself is party. Pretty outrageous and with the potential to have long-term damaging consequences for it going forward if it persists.
I do not know the specific arrangements between Australia and AZ or whether that contract was agreed prior to the AZ/EU one, or even where the AZ/Australia contract stipulated the vaccines would be supplied from. So it may be that the EU’s contract with AZ does supersede that agreed with Australia but I can’t say without seeing the Australian agreement. The Australian government have objected so presumably they believe they are legally entitled to the 250,000 doses that the Italian government has stopped, so far, from being exported.
Ya objectively, while I understand this is a very complex issue because its not just a commercial decision but it involves a pandemic that involves politics too. I might be over simplifying things here but at least from my point of view, of all people, I would expect the EU to abide by rules of law, whether in contracts and any disputes. IF and I say if, because, without knowing the details, EU might be right afterall, but IF, contractually, AZ has every right to ship to OZ first because of contract signing timing, then its quite disappointing that EU is doing this. But I guess we can only make a definitive view if we truly have details.
You either haven’t read or you haven’t understood any of the analysis regarding the two different contractual situations.
-
The contracts are with two entirely different legal entities. The AZ/UK one is between the UK government and AZ UK. The EU one is between the EU and AZ EU (Sweden).
-
The UK agreement was signed on the back of an agreement between the UK and Oxford University signed in April or May of last year. That agreement funded the research, development and scaling of the vaccine. Oxford then needed to partner with a pharma company and an agreement was entered into with AZ, but the UK insisted on a couple of conditions. A) Security of supply, it wanted dedicated supply lines. B) The vaccine needed to be made available at cost to everyone, worldwide. Licences were then given to places like the Serum Institute in India to begin producing the AZ vaccine to supply developing countries around the world.
-
The EU agreement contained no binding commitments as to amounts of doses to be delivered, or even the timetable for them to be delivered. It obligated AZ to produce and supply the (Initial) EU doses from its manufacturing sites in the EU (not the UK). For the Optional and Additional Doses AZ were allowed (not obligated), under the agreement, to supply these from its sites within the UK without needing to seek further approval from the EU. If AZ wanted to supply doses to meet the Additional or Optional orders from anywhere else it needed to obtain prior EU approval.
The EU has benefitted from the UK’s earlier commitment to the development and scaling up of the production of the vaccine. Without it, the amount of vaccines AZ would be able to produce right now would be even lower. AZ UK is honouring its obligations to the UK and AZ EU is honouring its obligations to the EU. That’s the reality.
What is the EU doing?
Well said Flobs, it’s about people, it’s about you and me and everyone else who is struggling during these times, at least it should be. And it seems that basic things are still being misunderstood or misinterpreted. If an EU country refuses or delays an export, it is said that the EU has done so, etc., as if they don’t want to see that every country within the EU has the right to make this decision independently.
2 Likes
That they are blocking the shipment to Australia from Italy and that is why Australia is appealing to the EU right? From what I read, “Italy is the first EU country to use the bloc’s new regulations allowing exports to be stopped if the company providing the vaccines has failed to meet its obligations to the EU.” That was in the BBC article. But I did said IF the EU does have a valid right, then by all means, do it. And that is what I was asking.
So Italy is blocking exports not the EU!
Under specific guidelines and regulations (in which I would like you to point out the flaws in if any).
Where is the comparison? I mean the UK are getting 100% of their quota Italy is not.
How many doses are actually being blocked from Italy to Oz, or doesn’t that matter?
I mean most doses are produced in Belgium so exports would probably only be affected if Belgium put up an export ban unless AZ are shipping to Italy first. That’s then AZ’s problem as far as I’m concerned.
1 Like
I mentioned the EU because the EU’s new regulations allow individual countries to do that right? But even then, my question is not this, my question is that whether it was right for this instance and I did say that if the rule of law rules in the favour of blocking the export, then fair play. And I did say I have no access to information, that is why I am asking…
And it seems that this discussion is going down the emotional route with no room for questions that are sincerely that, questions. So I will not waddle any further in this discussion. Feel free guys.
1 Like
Italy is part of a trade and political union. Something called the EU. It cannot unilaterally decide to block exports without sanction, it can only do so pursuant to the EU rules introduced in January 2021.
Actually, the UK is slightly down on the quota due to it both from Pfizer and AZ but yes, it is getting the vast proportion of what it has ordered.
Italy may not be getting all of the doses estimated in accordance with the estimated delivery schedules but that doesn’t automatically give it the entitlement to interfere with the contractual obligations owed by a private firm to 3rd parties. It doesn’t automatically mean that AZ are breaching their obligations to Italy (or other EU countries). They should rely on the contractual terms agreed rather than the unilateral (protectionist) measures introduced post hoc by the EU. Evidently the problem is, as the EU has now come to appreciate, that the contractual obligations between it and AZ are not as cast-iron as they have tried to make out. Otherwise they’d cite the contract rather than override that with allowing EU member states to block exports.
250,000 currently.
AZ has a drug substance manufacturing facility and a drug product manufacturing facility in Italy (Catalent). They are specifically referenced at Schedule A in the EU/AZ contract that you obviously have very little knowledge of.
It’s an emotional subjet particularly for a country like Italy who completely fucked up their covid response or has everyone forgotten that?
With the type of government Italy has I’m not sure that any one can be surprised. They need to give their population something and rule of law in the circumstances can go take a running jump as far as i’m concerned. It’s not like people don’t matter!
2 Likes
Got my vaccination appel today, if my GP does it it will be AZ vaccination if he sends me to a vaccination center then probably Pfizer. It’s speeding up in France after the usual classic slow start.
4 Likes
I was fortunate enough not to be working when the pandemic hit, had savings so I did not have to work. What I did was volunteer. Like thousands of scientists did around the world. Similar to crowd sourcing, much of the research on Covid was performed by using expertise around the globe. All doing a little bit to help the overall outcome. That’s part of the reason these vaccines were developed so quickly. Virtually all my former colleagues and companies I worked with, stopped doing what they were doing to help make vaccines (in London, Cambridge Middlesbrough, Edinburgh, Boston ). They are all immensely proud of what they have achieved. My LinkedIn feed is like celebration of achievement. People calling it the proudest moments of their careers.
No one thought we could develop a vaccine so quickly. The world has never rolled out a vaccine at such a scale. You question why I am pro pharma, it’s because what has been achieved is one of the biggest achievements of man kind. It’s something Where I know large numbers friends/people have done everything they could to help develop.
The entire notion that countries ordered x million, and expected a delivery of x million. Is absurd in its very notion. This has been a wilful ignorance by politicians. That’s not how R&D works. The vaccines were high risk. That’s exactly why countries have ordered enough vaccines to vaccinate their entire population six times over. It’s like politicians comparing credit card debt, to national debt.
You say I missunderstand the EU. Perhaps I do. But there is a fundamental lack of understanding of R&D and just what an achievement it is AZ even getting the EU 40% of its order. Contracts signed before safety data was in, signed before scale up, signed before the EU had approved.
I am OK with the UK having priority. Because they funded the research. (The high risk aspect developed by Oxford). This is perfectly normal in R&D. If you make a high risk investment you get greater reward. Just as the French would have done if the vaccine developed by Pasteur Institute had of worked.
Just for clarity. AZ failed to deliver UK orders as promised. But so has basically every single vaccine supplier. They promised the UK 30M but delivered just 4M by January this year. So let’s get things in perspective.
The EU or individual sovereign states can blame AZ all they like. They are just one of half a dozen suppliers. The problems with the EU vaccine roll out run much deeper.
6 Likes
So @ISMF you are bias!
I see you completely miss the political points for personal gratification of you and your friends.