That’s 80.6% of all adults with at least one dose and 58.6% with two.
I’d be grateful for someone to look at the judgment and confirm the actual outcome because I am seeing different things being said
Yes, I’ve seen both ‘sides’ claim victory. Unfortunately, the judgment is only available in French at the moment and my French isn’t good enough to interpret a legal judgment with any certainty.
Reading between the lines of what’s been reported it seems that the judge has largely agreed with my assessment of the contractual obligations, which would be very sensible of them…
My reading of the situation the EU won on principle (best efforts not made) but failed on obligations on AZ to deliver.
A moral victory of sorts. However a total failure in terms of getting a meaningful outcome. ie the only winners were the lawyers. Certainly AZ will be that happier of the two parties.
It would be good to understand more in their judgement on best efforts. Does that hinge on use of UK site ?
Without seeing the details it appears a judge placating both parties.
I’ll reserve a more considered view for when a translated judgment might be available but until then this is what I can piece together from various claims made by both sides.
i) The EU wanted the Court to order Astrazeneca to provide 300m doses by the end of July and pay a penalty of €10 per missing dose per day after that.
The Court rejected this.
Firstly, the Court found for Astrazeneca that they were not obliged to provide 300m doses by x date as claimed by the EU.
This is what I’ve pointed out all along.
ii) The important point is that Astrazeneca are to use Best Reasonable Efforts. For me, this is the core part of the case. What does this obligation mean/require for a pharmaceutical company producing vaccines at speed, from scratch, to counter a novel virus?
The judge has effectively stated that it means doing precisely what Astrazeneca have been doing. He has ordered Astrazeneca to supply further doses in accordance with a timetable that Astrazeneca are already exceeding (ie meeting ahead of). He has imposed a penalty of €10 per dose that is late (but not accruing daily). Astrazeneca, for their part, are not bothered by this because they are set to more than meet these targets anyway.
iii) The judge has also said that in order to discharge their obligation of best reasonable efforts that Astrazeneca should supply doses from the UK sites IF they were to fall short of the schedule he has set out. He has said, however, that he cannot order them to do this. This could be for a few reasons but a) Astrazeneca have not actually fallen short of this schedule and are unlikely to, and b) the EU has no right of priority to these doses. This is more an observation about what might be considered necessary to meet the obligation of best reasonable efforts and something that is unlikely to fall under consideration going forward.
The fact that the EU got nothing from this judgment that Astrazeneca weren’t already doing anyway would have me lean towards a win for Astrazeneca. Certainly the EU failed on their main arguments as to what they claimed the contract obligated Astrazeneca to do.
rolling average here in British Columbia, 112 new cases per day. we are out of lockdown, groups up to 50 allowed outdoors and I’m expecting my second shot appt next week for Phiz/Mod.
Have a good weekend everyone. going lakeside camping with some friends and our kids. hopefully get into a few fish this weekend with the fly rod.
I am surprised that a critical commercial contract hinges on the term ‘best effort’ without specifying what constitutes best effort and what do not. My guess was that in the midst of a pandemic that AZ, in all fairness, cannot ascertain supply certainties and EU would have agreed then just to get the contract and manufacturing going but as situations escalated, every party now have different perceptions to what is best effort based on what benefits them the most.
Yeah its a bit confusing. Even beyond the definition of ‘best effort’, why was AZ’s ‘best effort’ for the UK (delivered most if not all promised doses) so vastly different to the best effort for the EU? We know from contract leaks that the UK government could take punitive action if AZ failed to deliver, while the EU couldn’t as their contract was weaker. But contracts are independent. If AZ decided it was in the company’s best interest to fulfill the UK contract at the expense of the EU one, that is their prerogative, but they should expect some fallout from that.
Rather impressively, this misunderstands the entire situation.
We did not reach our goal this week 1.432.822 about 60.000 less than planned. Almost 14m jabs now have been given and next Monday I will get my second AZ jab.
Dave Keating… Truth-twisting EU shill
well some good news from what was a bad situation here. We finally got a steady stream of vaccine into the country and we’re catching up on our vaccination numbers
I’m getting my second shot (first was AZ, second will be Phiz/Mod choice) on Sunday. Hopefully the border opens up soon as we haven’t been to our property in USA in 15months.
My first dose was Pfizer BioNTech. Based on the recent information, provincial government and City of Toronto are holding back the Pfizer vaccine for 12-18 years old, as it is the only vaccine approved for the age group at the current time. With the slow down in Pfizer supply, I will likely be giving Moderna for my 2nd dose this week.
All this mixing and matching is a bit weird. Getting the Fizzer 2 tomorrow. Very good figures again here. How come UK numbers still rising despite such a high percentage of people vaxxed?
Case numbers (infections) are rising due to Delta but so far hospitalisations and deaths remain relatively flat (there’s been a small up tick) and this is definitely due to vaccines suppressing the numbers that would otherwise go on to result in serious illness and/or death.
I’ll get my second Pfizer vaccination on Wednesday. After everything I’ve heard and read about the 2nd vaccination, I’m a little scared now tbh.