Yeah, that explains the slow start in many countries. For what it’s worth, I think it’s ok that after the first wave of vaccines for the most fragiles who want it, the young ones should be included right away. It’s them who see most people, go out the most etc. and are also less disciplined regarding social distance.
In my area, after a first period for the oldest ones, and a short two-week spell for the over-60s, vaccines have now been made available for everyone, including the youngsters over 18. A sensible move imo.
That’s over 34 million with at least one dose and over 14 million having had both doses.
For comparison that’s over 50% of the population having had at least one dose (compared with the EU which has vaccinated 22.6% of its population with one dose). 20.6% fully vaccinated compared with 8.3% for the EU.
Yeah, this was a debate initially, but in addition to it being a bit of a moral hazard (those of you obeying the rules and being responsible get penalized by being deprioritized for the vaccine), the strategy was limited by the lack of data on virus transmission. Those studies were harder to do, so the pivotal trials on which the approvals were based on focused on sickness in people who develop covid. We’ve now got those data that show pretty convincingly that the vaccines do massively reduce transmission. It was always likely to be the case, but without those data prioritizing young people was a bit of a non-starter.
What I see as prohibative here is the logistics particularly for populous countries. The information required is enormous and keeping to ‘the system’ as in France allows for trial and error and hopefully they are looking at improving things as time goes by. (i.e time is being bought).
Even more populous countries with less administration are particularly vunerable probably having to use a region by region approach. Saying that these centralised systems like in France create their own problrems in many ways I would have liked a much more local response on a community level but that’s not how the authorities see it. Even so when thinking of countries like India it really does become an immense problem sorting out logistics particularly when vaccine availability isn’t assured (and highlights the problem of for example AZ with the EU).
Easy to spread things out if it’s a very rich country with a small population much more difficult as the population gets larger and the money is scarce.
Last week, the Netherlands, along with Croatia, Sweden, Cyprus and France, were among the worst corona hearths on the continent. Especially the south is the Sjaak.
The dangers of Google translating the above article…
European prick champion Malta reported only 15 new infections on Wednesday.
Florida vs California. Disneyworld has been open since July, Disneyland opens (to public residents of the state only) today. There’s rumours that Disney are so pissed off by this that they’re planning on moving a huge number of jobs and property (not physically) to Florida. I’ve not looked at the respective state’s figures though.
Well, just been Astra-Zenica’d and am now waiting to be told it’s safe to drive home. My god there is something unsettling about industrial units hastily repurposed into emergency testing/vaccination centres. We’ve all seen too many disaster film.
Had a nice chat with the booking in nice. She seemed genuinely pissed off with the number of people turning up and arguing about the vaccine they’d been give. Told me she’d been reminding people that every time they take a flight they’re accepting a greater risk of blood clots that with the vaccine.
The contract even has a clause saying the Commission cannot sue AstraZeneca if it doesn't deliver on time — a clause lawyers believe the Commission will seek to invalidate in a Belgian court.
So from a legal position, I have 2 questions.
Is a clause like that actually legal?
and
What would the grounds be for the EU to claim that clause should be invalidated?
I can only answer from the basis of the law of England and Wales so…
The clause exists, it is paragraph 15.1 and states,
“The Commission and each of the Participating Member States each within their respective competencies, on behalf of itself, waive and release any claim against AstraZeneca arising out of or relating to […] (e) delays in delivery of the Vaccine under this Agreement.”
The contract is legally binding. It was entered into between two competent parties with access to expert legal advice who will be deemed to have fairly equal bargaining power.
That particular term of the contract is enforceable but actually only serves to really emphasise the point that the delivery schedule was only ever an estimate. Schedule A itself is explicitly headed “Estimated Delivery Schedule” and goes on to make it clear that the delivery schedule represents the “earliest possible delivery of Doses to the Participating Member States”.
I know of no grounds that they could use to claim that such a clear condition of the contract was not binding. So far the EU have just unilaterally taken steps simply because they don’t like what they’ve signed up to. Not sure that a Court will allow them such hegemony. What’s left for them to argue? It’s not binding on them because they lacked legal competence for reasons of insanity?
Sorry, I was being a little flippant. But what the EU will try and argue is that AstraZeneca can only avail itself of this waiver if it has used its Best Reasonable Efforts. Best Reasonable Efforts (as far as AZ is concerned) is defined as:
“the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety”.
It’s worth repeating that “AstraZeneca” refers only to AstraZeneca AB, not the wider group of companies (which include AstraZeneca UK).
So the EU will argue that if AstraZeneca AB has not fulfilled its BRE obligations then it cannot benefit from the waiver.
I would agree with that so it comes back to whether AstraZeneca AB has complied with its BRE obligations and that requires knowledge to a detail that is not in the public domain. AZ AB says it has, EU disputes this.
But the mere fact of a shortfall in vaccines being delivered is not, on its own, a breach of the terms of the APA.
