Probably both !
1 Like
Mmmm, thought they were for the UK
Nope, just another example of the EU shitting the bed and a determination to publicly trash AstraZeneca. Honestly, AstraZeneca should just tell it to fuck off now.
1 Like
Slow handclap for the EU.
Indeed. They have absolutely excelled themselves on this one.
1 Like
It makes you think whether making the only non-profit vaccine a target of inflated criticism and false claims was motivated by conflicts of interest…
I actually can’t remember many things making me as furious about something as this. I think I have to go back as far as the Iraq war.
1 Like
It wouldn’t be the first time. Especially the French government has a history of favouring big pharma companies whenever they can, even sometimes at the expense of public health. I for one wouldn’t be at all surprised if the current barrage aimed at AZ was in order to give the likes of Pfizer for instance an advantage over AZ.
1 Like
Do my ears deceive me? Did Ros just question whether the EU’s export controls (not bans) are ‘just a more diluted version of the UK and US approach’? I can’t believe it took 6 weeks for someone in the UK media to suggest that the end result of a country hoarding vaccines via contract stipulations is no different to the end result of a country controlling vaccine exports.
Except one is legal and one isn’t?
1 Like
I’ve seen the AstraZeneca vaccine today falsely described as the centre piece of the EU’s vaccination policy, which is a total lie just uttered to try and inflame emotions even further. The EU ordered as much or more from each of Sanofi (300M), Curevac (405M), Pfizer (400M) and Moderna (380M) than it did from AZ (300M).
Curevac and Sanofi have delivered ZERO. Moderna’s delivery to the EU is 50% short for Q1. Pfizer also suffered shortfalls (was a third short to EU on deliveries at the start of this year) but is now meeting targets. Ironically, it wouldn’t be able to do this without exports from UK based firms providing vital components.
1 Like
He makes the fundamental mistake (as do you) of conflating vaccines produced within a country’s territory as belonging to that country (or political bloc in this instance). Vaccines produced in the UK or in the EU do not belong to the UK or the EU. They belong to the pharmaceutical companies who have produced them and who are then obligated to supply them in accordance with their contractual obligations to their customers.
This is an interesting resource. Shows the distribution (and administration) of vaccines within the EU/EEA per member state and also distinguishes between vaccines.
https://qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab
Just why isn’t there middle ground with AZ? Either they are put on a pedestal where the companies failings in providing transparent trial data in pretty much all their trials is ignored, or they are heavily criticised publically by figures like Macron? Why isn’t there middle ground?
If AZ call an end to their non-profit pledge on the 1st of July like they have the power to do (1), and AZ and those with a stake in Vaccitech (Sarah Gilbert, Adrian Hill) stand to make a profit (2) - which I have no problem with -what makes their situation more noble than a Biotech + Pharma company releasing a successful vaccine? Their price? J&J has a similar price doesn’t it ($8.50 for full vaccination)? Bangladesh is paying more for the AZ vaccine than the EU ($4 vs $3.50). The EU and US are paying more than twice the price for the Pfizer jab than African Union countries ($14.70, $19.50 and $6.75 respectively (3). There are price discrepancies all over the place.
It seems all developers and manufacturers of the vaccines have gone to efforts to ensure that pricing doesn’t freeze out the poorest nations. For all these companies to bring a vaccine to market using new technologies and roll out millions of doses in less than 12 months is a phenomenal effort. To also ensure that there is a global view taken on prices is the cherry on the top.
The only sour taste is from the same pharma companies signing contracts that fly in the face of this global approach. AZ signed a contract which prioritised one nation above all others. The USA appears to have a similar contract with Moderna and/or Pfizer. How do these contracts further the goal of inoculating the globe from this disease?
1 Like
A balanced view on AZ would be nice but that’s not what we’re getting. We’re getting AZ excessively maligned and smeared and no spotlight whatsoever on the other vaccines or pharmaceutical companies. Despite similar issues with side effects, trial data being misstated and/or even greater failures in delivery.
AZ has to almost weekly come out in the press and deny some ridiculous and untrue disparaging claim against it.
Nobody can seriously claim to have been ignorant about the UK’s priority in regards to access of the AZ vaccine. It was made explicitly clear as long ago as 18 May 2020 (the day after the initial Licence Agreement between AZ(UK) and Oxford was signed with the UK as a named 3rd party).
Here’s a news report with Alok Sharma making that point specifically
https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1262255604074242051
In fact, here’s the original from the day the Licence Agreement was signed (17 May 2020):
Starts talking about vaccines from 6.59. 8.57 starts talking specifically about Oxford and AstraZeneca. At 9.22 “The UK will be first to get access”.
1 Like
That’s pretty shocking. Any explanation for this?
The cost for Bangladesh will apparently average out at closer to $3.00 per dose. Maybe it is more expensive initially due to having to fund supply chains?
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-bangladesh-india-idUSL4N2JM310
1 Like