No. Large % of this production is for COVAX.
I’ll respond in further detail later.
They are you numbers,i just roughly worked out the percentage.Maybe you gave me the numbers produced in each area instead.I’m more looking for numbers produced for each area rather than in.
Maybe you could Google it yourself, then share?
I could but I know you love that type of stuff 
Worth noting those are the numbers of doses. Got to half the number for the number of people that will vaccinate.
India is the worlds hub for AZ vaccine, they will be delivering to Japan, Canada and many African countries. I read some uproar about India sending 10M doses to the UK.
There is a lack of clarity on the UK numbers, and how they are reported (reporting 2 jabs or one). Saw a report a couple of weeks ago which suggested the UK had three sources for its 20M or so vaccines it had at that point in time (2-3M from EU December, 10M produced in India, 8M produced in the UK). That does not include the Phizer doses the UK obtained from the EU.
These numbers will have changed. But cant find a reliable source. However there has also been issues with UK production.
Kopstar did mention those in India and Argentina were manufactured numbers and not specifically given to those countries populations.
I have tried but due to being technologically challenged I’ve been unable to source those numbers I was asking for.
The point being we should be looking to vaccinate all vulnerable worldwide first in order to save against serious illness and death, not prioritising healthy citizens in our own countries so they can go the pub or on their holidays.
1 Like
“Our row is not with the UK government , it’s with AstraZeneca,” one senior diplomat told me. “But that row is a very profound one. They have played God with people’s lives, made promises they can’t keep, and let us down. And now people are going to die.”
Latest language being directed towards AstraZeneca. Fucking hell.
1 Like
Of course you can. You can be as pissed off with as many things as you want. When you say that you can’t remember anything making you as furious than EU/AZ since Iraq, i think it misses the biggest scandal and avoidable loss of (your own citizens’) life due to a (your own) government since … well, ever probably. I don’t see the relentless effort of internet trawling and information posting to highlight that that goes into the EU/AZ affair.
It’s become a bit brain numbing, i’m not sure why i clicked on this thread again tbh.
2 Likes
You’re underestimating the scale of damage that is and will be wrought by this deplorable episode. Thousands are now dying because of this, many hundreds of thousands of lives are likely to be lost and what possible incentive will there be in the future for large pharmaceutical companies to take a similarly altruistic approach as AstraZeneca have done. The repercussions may be profound.
And these will all have been foreseeable and avoidable. It’s utterly disgusting.
I’m not underestimating anything. I understand exactly the damage the EU/AZ affair will do. That’s not my point and i think you know that.
If you think I’ve overlooked failures by the government then you’re very much mistaken. I was less of a lone voice of criticism against the UK government though - notable that there are far fewer voices criticising the EU. Many even defending the indefensible.
I think your point is incorrect.
Thousands and thousands have posts have been about the incompetence of the UK government and the impact upon human life. Imperial models, communication, PPE, track and trace, eat out to help out, lock down dates, schools, furloughing staff.
There is not an aspect of UK government poor handling that has not been discussed at considerable length in this thread. Also the one in TIA. A daily commentary typically with disgust of 20,000 dead, 60,000 dead, 100,000 dead. Huge amounts of anger, fear and venting.
There is no debate about it today as every aspect has been debated to an inch of its life.
The vaccine is the main story. Thats being treated to the same detail as shown previously.
Edit
I say this thread, but I should include the UK politics thread and some of the things predated TAN and I think the thread was over 10,000 posts before we shifted over.
2 Likes
The lack of doses being manufactured is what is costing lives.Not enough are getting to the people who need it most because we don’t have enough to give out.
Sure, that’s a challenge but the manufacturing difficulties aren’t deliberate and AstraZeneca is the vaccine being produced in the second largest numbers globally (to Pfizer). There are at least ten other vaccines and vaccine candidates that are producing in fewer numbers than AstraZeneca.
The actions of the EU are hindering those efforts, not aiding them.
You won’t agree but imo the reason for problems with AZ dose numbers in europe is down to them prioritising the UK as the the UK contract has punishments/clauses built in.That is less of a problem with manufacturing process(although there have been some) and more down to not manufacturing enough to both fill the UK contract and give what the eu had expected.Their best efforts have been decreased due to the UK contract.
When promising best efforts AZ should have given a more realistic number and made the eu aware that someone else had got in with an exclusive contract before them which would need to be filled first.
2 Likes
I can’t sleep so I’ve come into the office to catch up on some work but thought I’d take the time to correct some constant misapprehensions. Like probably everyone I’ve struggled over the last twelve months. I don’t want to go into it but it’s just some small context as to how invested I have become (as I’m sure most people have) in vaccines helping the world recover to some semblance of ‘normal’. They are the light at the end of the tunnel. I desperately want them to succeed and to be as widely available as possible.
There’s a lot of information out there about the various vaccines and each day more ‘new’ aspects become known, there’s a new update on how many needles we and everywhere else have managed to get into people’s arms, a further update on the lives taken by covid and those who have been hospitalised. I’ve become obsessive about it (something that happens with ADHD). I knew very little about immunology six months ago and although I’m certainly no expert (obviously) I know a lot more now. I’ve probably spent the best part of 2-3 hours a day reading about vaccines, approvals, deliveries etc over the last 3-4 months.
What I do have expertise in, however, are contracts (and legal issues generally). So…given AstraZeneca is such a hot topic of conversation at the moment (it’s being blasted from so many different angles!) I thought I’d set out the position and how we arrived at where we are. As many of you will have gathered by now, I feel fairly protective about AstraZeneca because it’s the only vaccine being mass-produced that can be stored in normal fridges and is being made available at cost for the period of the pandemic - it is the best hope for returning half the world to normality.
So…a chronology:
February 2020
The government provide funding into the Jenner Institute and Vaccitech (Oxford University and a spin-off) to undertake research into covid treatments and vaccine development.
There’s a really great article written about the early days and the questions about partnerships etc here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/oxford-developed-covid-vaccine-then-scholars-clashed-over-money/ar-BB1agoI3
April 2020
The government provide further funding.
Merck was originally courted as a potential partner but the UK government were concerned that a vaccine produced in the US may never leave the US (concerns that have been shown to be justified). With that in mind AstraZeneca were almost the last gig in town. So despite them not having huge experience in vaccines they were, nonetheless, a huge pharmaceutical company that operated worldwide. They were also agreeable to engaging on the non-profit basis…
These discussions took place in April and were more or less concluded by the 30th.
After 10 days of talks, AstraZeneca agreed to commit to global distribution that wouldn’t favor any one country or region. It also agreed to provide the vaccine at cost during the pandemic, or at least until next summer, pending terms they were still hashing out. U.K. government officials worked on a deal to pay up-front for doses.
A successful vaccine could prove profitable for AstraZeneca in the long run, while burnishing the reputation of the company.
Details of Oxford’s agreement with AstraZeneca are private. But a company spokesman said it guarantees to sell at no profit the roughly 3 billion doses for which it already has agreements in place.
“We have also promised to make the vaccine available to low- to middle-income countries at no profit in perpetuity,” the AstraZeneca spokesman said.
AstraZeneca made an official announcement on 30 April 2020 (although the Licence Agreement was formally completed a bit later on 17 May 2020).
Vaccitech also announced the deal: https://www.vaccitech.co.uk/vaccitech-and-oxford-university-announce-landmark-partnership-with-astrazeneca-for-the-development-and-large-scale-distribution-of-the-covid-19-vaccine-candidate/
Under the new agreement, as well as providing UK access as early as possible if the vaccine candidate is successful, AstraZeneca will work with global partners on the international distribution of the vaccine, particularly working to make it available and accessible for low and medium income countries.
The Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Professor Louise Richardson said: “Like my colleagues all across Oxford, I am deeply proud of the work of our extraordinarily talented team of academics in the Jenner Institute and the Oxford Vaccine Group. They represent the best tradition of research, teaching and contributing to the world around us, that has been the driving mission of the University of Oxford for centuries. Like people all across the country, we are wishing them success in developing an effective vaccine. If they are successful, our partnership with Astra Zeneca will ensure that the British people and people across the world, especially in low and middle income countries, will be protected from this terrible virus as quickly as possible.”
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said: “Across government, we are working night and day to stop the spread of coronavirus and protect our NHS. But in the long run, a vaccine remains our best hope of defeating this virus for good. So I am determined to do everything in my power to develop an effective vaccine and get it to the people of the UK as soon as possible. I want the UK to lead the world in developing a coronavirus vaccine – and I will back our scientists to the hilt in doing so.”
Now, if those statements on 30 April 2020 are too oblique to appreciate that this was a vaccine being developed to prioritise vaccinating the UK then there was this statement from Alok Sharma at the Downing Street briefing on the day the Licence Agreement between AstraZeneca and Oxford was signed (with the UK having 3rd party rights).
Sharma starts talking about vaccines from 6:59 and specifically about Oxford/AstraZeneca at 8:57. At 9:22 he says, “AstraZeneca will work to make 30 million doses available by September (2020) for the UK, as part of an agreement to deliver 100 million doses in total. The UK will be first to get access”.
There is simply no way that the EU can legitimately say that at the time they signed their Advanced Purchase Agreement on 27 August 2020 that they were not aware of the UK’s priority status with AZ that had publicly been announced more than 3 months earlier.
Now. There are some further issues that are important here.
The UK government signed its follow up Supply Agreement (note the differing terminology) with AstraZeneca UK on 28 August 2020. I have seen some in the EU and more generally make a thing about the EU signing its agreement a day earlier but this ignores a number of key aspects.
-
The agreements are not with the same company. The UK agreement is with AstraZeneca UK. The EU agreement is with AstraZeneca AB (EU).
-
The EU agreement is an Advanced Purchase Agreement. It recognises factors like teething problems with production, access to raw materials, provides for estimated amounts to be delivered against estimated delivery schedules. It specifically acknowledges the earlier work already undertaken to scale its production pursuant existing orders (it doesn’t state the UK by name but it was already public).
-
The UK agreement is a Supply Agreement. It is much more explicit on delivery amounts, delivery dates, with penalties for missing them. It also includes dedicated (UK only) supply chains. It specifically references that it assumes the obligations from the earlier Licence Agreement dated 17 May 2020 (including the obligations owed to the UK government).
-
The EU have made much of their agreement including 4-5 sites wherefrom AZ are, they say, to supply the EU with vaccines. They have asserted that this includes two sites in the UK and has led to the EU insisting that it is entitled to supply from the UK facilities.
This is wrong. It is true that two UK facilities are listed in the contract but AZ are, in fact, under obligations to supply the Initial Europe Doses (para 5.1) from facilities within the EU. Para 5.4 explicitly excludes the UK sites from being included in that definition for the Initial Europe Doses (the first 300 million doses that were estimated to be provided by the 1st half of 2021). The estimated delivery schedule (further described as the “earliest possible”) was as follows:
30 million December 2020
40 million January 2021
30 million February 2021
20 million March 2021
80 million April 2021
40 million May 2021
60 million June 2021
These were estimated amounts and the dates shown are the estimated earliest possible.
EMA did not approve the AZ vaccine until 29 January 2021 by which time AZ had alerted the EU a week earlier (22 Jan) that it was going to be short of its estimated target of 100 million by end of February. It’s revised estimate was 30 million. As of yesterday the EU had distributed just over 17 million AZ doses but we know that there are 16 million doses awaiting EMA authorisation in Agnani, Italy. We know this because the EU sent in the Italian police to raid the factory thinking that there were 29 million doses there that were going to be sent to the UK. Nope. 16 million are for the EU and 13 million for COVAX (AZ vaccine that had been sent from Argentina for bottling). So keen are they to stop exports, the EU tried to stop exports of AZ to itself. 
But it is notable that the EU have received any AZ vaccine at all. Because AZ has been short on its order to the UK, which, as we know has first dibs. How come AZ is giving the EU any vaccines at all if it hasn’t delivered the UK the 30 million it promised it by September last year, let alone the 100 million it had ordered and was promised first?
We come back to the different commercial entities and the separate supply chains.
AZ(UK) is supplying the UK from its dedicated supply chains in the UK and also abroad where possible, this is rumoured to include the AZ facility in the Netherlands (not the Halix or Catalent ones) but also perhaps there is an arrangement with the Serum Institute in India given doses are being sourced from there currently. I imagine that there is not such an obvious UK first entitlement to this stock given the focus was equally on ensuring supply to low-income countries (as well as the UK). But as for AZ doses going to the UK from facilities within the EU, that eye-watering number is 1 million. The rest has all been Pfizer (approximately 20 million).
Richer countries like the US and also those within the EU are, effectively, lower priority than the UK (as funder, developer and licensor) and low-income countries. The EU obviously don’t like that but then when you think you may only vaccinate at the same rate as the rest of the world (through COVAX) the EU didn’t want to participate as it wanted access earlier. Now it finds itself behind the UK and US (but ahead of nearly everywhere else), it suddenly wants things to be more equitable. Although I note it is not proposing to ensure that everyone over the age of 80 all around the world is vaccinated before itself then vaccinates its own under 80s. Funny that.
This also comes down to approach. The UK were proactive, organised, experts in their field, moved quickly and backed several different horses. We’ve ordered from J&J, Pfizer, Moderna, Valneva, Novavax, and, of course, AstraZeneca. We’ve also ordered from Curevac. Oops.
Some gambles pay off, some don’t. It’s just a bit of luck that the UK secured an excellent deal with one of the first to bring a highly efficacious vaccine to market (AstraZeneca). That, together with the order it placed with Pfizer (before the EU), has meant that it has had good access to vaccines to administer in high numbers (even if the numbers are not as high as expected). It could not have come too soon, either. Pfizer was approved early December just as we were hit by the B1.117 (Kent) variant. This has proven to be more transmissible and more fatal than the original virus (as initially projected by UK scientists who were scorned across the channel). We went from lower death rates than Italy and Spain to much higher numbers of people dying.
Without the vaccines we would have still been seeing hundreds of deaths per day. The vaccination program in the UK has already saved up to 10,000 lives.
Now, the EU vaccination program has been a disaster. It is still in negotiations to even order vaccines from some companies. It ordered late, it prioritised price rather than speed. And the vaccines it has got it isn’t fully utilising. It has also smeared AZ so badly that more than half of its population think it is unsafe. Thousands of people across the continent are refusing to take it such that AZ vaccines sit unused in fridges or, worse, are being thrown away. Now it wants to embargo AZ vaccines belonging to 3rd parties that it’s variously decried as shit and unsafe, and which most of its population don’t want.
In the EU Council statement today it laughably rebuked Turkey for disrespecting the rule of law whilst simultaneously stating that it was going to ignore it as well.
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1375205598598402053
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1375205781868531714
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1375205985309102082
The trashing of AZ has been consistent and continues:
“Our row is not with the UK government , it’s with AstraZeneca,” one senior diplomat told me. “But that row is a very profound one. They have played God with people’s lives, made promises they can’t keep, and let us down. And now people are going to die.”
Wow. If there’s blood on anyone’s hands it’s firmly on the EU’s.
4 Likes
The contracts the EU has for 2021 includes 600M doses with Phizer, 310M doses with Moderna, 200M doses of J&J, 300M doses Sanofi-GSK , and 405M doses CureVac . With the AZ doses on top of that.
The population of EU is just 447M. AZ has not delivered what it hoped. But neither has anyone else. All of those contracts will have best efforts clauses. All of these companies will likely fall well short of orders.
Now the EU proudly states it has exported 77M vaccines. Now ignoring EU cant both be customer and supplier 
. It been conflated with AstraZeneca as an example of them not honouring their contract. Of that 77M, it is made up almost entirely of Phizer exports (>95%). Only major Astrazenica export was a couple of million to the UK before EU approval.
So Phizer exporting out of the EU countries is being used as justification that AZ should be exporting out of the UK. Its not the UKs fault or AZ fault Phizer exports lots of vaccines out of the EU. Its not out of EU generosity that Phizer exports to other countries. Just as its not UK generosity that Croda exports from UK to Europe the lipid for every Phizer vaccine.
The UK did absolutely nothing wrong when back in April they secured priority by becoming a research partner. They prevented Oxford-Merck deal from occurring, for fears of US supply chains. The EU came to the table a few months later in full knowledge of the UK having priority for first 30M doses (it was in public domain). So what right does it have to say that AZ should not honor it, and prioritise themselves ?
So take that into account:
-
EU knew it was high risk so ordered from multiple suppliers. Ordering 5x amount needed. It was never order 200M, expect 200M.
-
Basically every vaccine supplier will not meet expectations, ever supplier under delivered. Some will possibly never see the light of day. All will have similar best efforts clauses.
-
Phizer are exporting vaccines. Not EU, Not to any great extent AZ. Thats not a pro for the EU or should be ammo against AZ.
-
EU must have known UK had priority for doses produced in the UK when negotiating. The EU cant claim ignorance or belief that their agreement superseded UK one. (unless they negotiated with understanding they were trying to get AZ to break its contract to the UK)
-
Its not UK or AZ fault that multiple private contracts EU negotiated have not been successful.
Ursula von der Leyen is acting like a populist similar to Trump or Johnson. False equivalence is rampant (eg priority=ban), EU are exporting lots of Phizer vaccine therefore, UK should be exporting AZ (private companies, and contracts). Providing disingenuous facts or arguments (claims of didn’t know UK contract) when anyone who can use date range in google can see this is false or gross ignorance at best.
Its been poorly handled. While no doubt AZ has had it faults. The lack of focus on Phizer or vaccines that delivered nothing yet is stark.
4 Likes
Who is right or wrong is not important IMO. Just read an article in a quality Dutch newspaper (NRC) written by Jan Fransoo a professor in operations and logistics at the University of Tilburg and Prashant Yadav who is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington and connected to INSEAD and Harvard Medical School.
In short, due to all the logistics of all the raw materials that are from countries outside the UK, you can say the finished product will not leave the EU but what if other countries say well, be that as it may, but we don’t let our raw materials leave our countries so you will have no finished product at all. And what happens next year, when everybody needs another dose of the stuff.
Work together that is how you solve problems.
4 Likes
The most troublesome aspect of this whole episode is the impact it will have on future pandemics.
Oh, yes. Future pandemics. We’re collapsing the Earth’s biosphere. One of the inevitable consequences of that is a greater prevalence of viruses and pathogens.
Oxford/AZs commitment to produce this vaccine at cost was a remarkable gesture in deeply cynical times.
Their ‘reward’ for this has been for the EU to trash the company and collapse their share price. The accusation of ‘playing god’ was beyond the pale. It’s absolutely disgraceful.
When the next pandemic rolls around, will any pharmaceutical company be willing to forgo their profits for the good of the human race? I doubt that very much.
5 Likes
Who stands most to gain from AZ being trashed and their vaccine not being orders/taken up/used i wonder. Somebody, somewhere is leveraging this shitfuckery (my new favourite word courtesy of that Australia video) to make money.
3 Likes