[Atlantis]

I wonder if the confidential/sensitive parts of the contract may actually be relevant for assessing whether AstraZeneca has carried out its "best effort" to deliver the vaccines.

No, as I explained above, AstraZeneca has fulfilled its obligation towards the UK at the expense of deliveries to the EU.

AstraZeneca is in breach of contract. That is obvious.

It's also lying with respect to the alleged production shortfalls in its EU production facilities. The UK was first supplied from factories in the EU, but the UK banned exports of vaccines to the EU.

The EU cannot continue to export vaccines to the UK if the UK bans exports to the EU.

British factories should make up AstraZeneca vaccine supply, EU says

AstraZeneca factories in the UK should manufacture Covid-19 vaccines for the European Union, EU officials have said. The statement came as the EU’s row with the pharmaceutical company deepened after it said it would fail to deliver the expected doses.

The EU hit back at the company after its chief executive Pascal Soriot gave an interview in which he blamed the supply disruption on teething problems that could have been avoided if the EU had signed its contract earlier, and suggested governments were getting “emotional”.

“I categorically reject this, they signed an agreement,” EU health commissioner Stella Kyriakides said of the idea that the UK’s doses should be delivered first as its contract was signed earlier.

“We reject the logic of first come, first served. That may work at the neighbourhood butchers but not in contracts, and not in our advance production agreements. There’s no priority clause in the advance production agreement.”

EU officials denied Mr Soriot’s assertion that the EU’s vaccine supply was dependent on factories located in the EU, saying that two British factories were also named as suppliers in their contract.

Coronavirus Data Dashboard
The row risks pitting British demands for vaccine dose deliveries against those from the EU, raising the prospect of a bitter row just weeks after Brexit took full effect. Thousands of people in the North have already received the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Health minister Stephen Donnelly has warned that supply delays mean that a target of fully vaccinating the Irish population by September could be missed. “It’s not a promise,” Mr Donnelly told RTÉ Radio 1’s Today with Claire Byrne.

Meanwhile, local authorities in the Spanish regions of Madrid and Catalonia warned they were running out of doses. “We need more doses and we need them now,” said Ignacio Aguado, the deputy head of Madrid’s regional government. “We have to move earth, sea and air to get them.”

Nevertheless, EU vaccine plans were bolstered by an announcement by Pfizer that a temporary reduction in deliveries due to a factory upgrade was now resolved, and that deliveries would shortly ramp up to make up the shortfall during the past fortnight. French pharmaceutical company Sanofi also announced it would dedicate a factory in Germany to producing the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine, further boosting supply.

EU funding
AstraZeneca was allocated €336 million in public EU funding to help the development and production of its vaccine in collaboration with Oxford University, in exchange for an agreement to supply the EU with 400 million early doses, part of a portfolio of more than two billion doses pre-booked by the bloc in a bid to halt the pandemic.

Of those, more than 100 million doses were due to arrive by the end of March, according to EU officials, who say the company agreed that doses would be ready to ship as soon as the vaccine is approved by the European Medicines Agency – which is expected on Friday. The company surprised the bloc last Friday by saying only a quarter of the expected amount would be delivered by the end of March, officials said.

EU officials suggested that some vaccines produced by AstraZeneca in its European factories may have been shipped elsewhere, including the UK. “The customs data do not lie,” an EU official said. “We can see vaccines were sent to many countries.” In December, the UK’s Vaccine Taskforce told reporters that the country’s initial supply of the AstraZeneca vaccine was being manufactured in the Netherlands and Germany.

Belgian authorities inspected the local AstraZeneca factory blamed for the production delays on Wednesday to verify what the problem is, officials said.

The European Commission has asked the company for its agreement to make the contract public, according to EU officials, who suggested that Mr Soriot’s interview on the subject may have breached an agreement to keep it confidential.

[Heisenberg]

Why don't you comment about what I wrote instead of your usual ad hominem when you run out of arguments?

Because what you wrote is nothing more than deranged Anglophobia. Why should I treat it like a serious argument?

We're "stealing vaccines from the EU" by... Paying a manufacturer for them? Go and have a lie down.

You sound like Kaiser Wilhelm before he'd had his morning coffee. Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't use the phrase "Perfidious Albion" and demand Cameroon as compensation.

Don't think that's true.

The British, Irish and Northern Irish governments have been united in their condemnation of the move, as have the WHO and a number of EU diplomats. Quite impressive that the EU managed to pull that off, really. If the best argument they have is that technically this thing, that effectively creates a hard border in Ireland, isn't really creating a hard border in Ireland, then it's pretty weak. Which is why they've had to row it back so quickly.

This is the weirdest thing to me: even the EU is acknowledging that it fucked up big time. And yet we still have some people determined to defend them for it. Why?

[B0ycey]

It's also lying with respect to the alleged production shortfalls in its EU production facilities. The UK was first supplied from factories in the EU, but the UK banned exports of vaccines to the EU.

The UK haven't banned exports of the vaccine to the EU. But I agree that UK plants should be supplying vaccines to the EU. But under the UK contact, it is rumoured they take priority. Which means Astrazenica cannot fulfil two contracts. Naturally the EU take issue here and rightly so. And in my opinion I agree the UK should perhaps facilitate that by only requiring what they need so Astrazenica can try and fulfil their obligations better for the EU in expense of us. Because I and a lot of people in the UK would take issue that if people are dying in Europe and we had excess reserves, that is morally wrong and not right or diplomatically savvy. And more importantly than that, it is also phyrric. Life cannot go on as it was until the world is vaccinated. So for every day the EU/UK isn't vaccinated, it is a day controls are in place between us. So by all means take issue here. By all means fight your corner and look after your own citizens and do what you need to do to protect them. As I said, I support the disclosure and making sure EU contracts are honoured because that it how it should be under a crisis. But please put the blame where it rightly belongs rather than make this a rant.

[noemon]

This is the weirdest thing to me: even the EU is acknowledging that it fucked up big time. And yet we still have some people determined to defend them for it. Why?

The EU has acknowledged that it made a mistake to invoke article 16 without coordinating with Ireland.

Astrazeneca is still in breach of contract, its CEO is openly prioritising the UK at the expense of the EU and the EU is still moving forward with placing export controls.

The secrecy and refusal of the British government and Astrazeneca to publish the vaccine figures is also another red flag that points to the direction that the EU vaccine manufacturing plants have been delivering vaccines for others but not for EU citizens.

[Atlantis]

@B0ycey, at this point, nobody has "excess vaccines". In 6 months time, everybody will have "excess vaccines."

The UK saying it won't export vaccines until everybody has been vaccinated is an effective export ban. The EU continues to allow vaccine exports, but due to the fraudulent behavior of AstraZeneca the EU will have to take measures to protect its citizens.

The UK's vaccine nationalism threatens everybody and won't save the Brits. The EU has opted for international cooperation because that's the only way to fight the pandemic.

@Heisenberg, you continue to add insult upon insult without a single argument, without a single fact. I have clearly demonstrated that:

1) the UK virus variant spread by travelers from the UK causes deaths in the EU and elsewhere

2) the UK is getting vaccines the EU paid for

These are the objective facts no matter how you want to phrase them.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey, at this point, nobody has "excess vaccines". In 6 months time, everybody will have "excess vaccines."

Sure. But what I meant is that if the UK vaccinated say a million with Astrazenica last week and UK plants did 3 million or whatever over that, we shouldn't store 2 million because we have a 100 dose contract. Those two million should go to Europe. And currently we aren't doing half a million. So without knowing the figures of production I was agreeing with you at least some effort should be made to send something to the EU regardless of contract due to their need as their vaccination program having stalled. I understand we need to hold some back because of our strategy. But I refuse to believe there isn't a diplomatic solution here. And being that the most vulnerable is mostly partly vaccinated and we are heading to spring, on a personal level I would be fine with waiting a month or even six months to be vaccinated. But that is a personal view.

[ness31]

FFS, I still can’t really understand what’s going on.

The UK paid for X amount of vaccines and has received them. The EU now has a vaccine shortage because of this?

Hello? Someone help me out.

[B0ycey]

FFS, I still can’t really understand what’s going on.

The UK paid for X vaccines and has received them. The EU now has a vaccine shortage because of this?

Hello? Someone help me out.

The EU have paid for them too. And there is an issue with production... and as it appears contracts. So forget what you read in this thread. This isn't an EU UK issue but a supply issue and a dispute between the EU and Astrazenica for a quantity of vaccines by the end if March. And a confusing on what is obliged. Then there is the topic, but that issue has been resolved. Caught up now?

[Patrickov]

1) the UK virus variant spread by travelers from the UK causes deaths in the EU and elsewhere

Ultimately it is the same virus that first spread from China. You are trying to use a relatively minor fact (a mutation first detected in UK) to cover-up the bigger fact (the spreading has always been ongoing).

2) the UK is getting vaccines the EU paid for

On first sight, I assume you are suggesting Astrazeneca is supplying Britain more than it asked.

But reading the EU quote in #15153883

We reject the logic of first come, first served.

It seems EU is very blatant in putting their own preservation over procedural justice, and you agree with them.

It is well-known that you have anti-Anglosphere bias so I don't find your standing surprising, but it also means I need to think twice before accepting your interpretation of facts.

[ness31]

The EU have paid for them too. And there is an issue with production... and as it appears contracts. So forget what you read in this thread. This isn't an EU UK issue but a supply issue and a dispute between the EU and Astrazenica for a quantity of vaccines by the end if March. And a confusing on what is obliged. Then there is the topic, but that issue has been resolved. Caught up now?

Sort of.

But is the contractual issue related to where the vaccines are manufactured?

[B0ycey]

Sort of.

But is the contractual issue relayed to where the vaccines are manufactured?

No, the issue is in what is regarded for the term "best effort". The shipment can come from the UK. But Astrazenica has a contract with the UK as well which according to Astrazenica is far more robust. So without falling into two sets of legal difficulties, they are fulfilling the UK quota. Which means this issue can only be resolved diplomatically. For Astrazenica would need some understanding from the UK government to send the EU shipments without the fear of being sued twice.

[ness31]

Nup. I don’t get it lol. I’ve tried to read up on it but it makes no sense to me. Best Efforts in the middle of a pandemic means just that I suppose.

[Atlantis]

@B0ycey, @ness31, et al, AstraZeneca is just a dodgy company making dodgy deals.

Here is a reconstruction of events of the AstraZeneca vaccine debacle from different sources.

- In the spring of 2020, the University of Oxford develops a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine based on its MERS vaccine, which is another corona virus.

- Oxford wants to partner with the US pharma giant Merck for trials, production and marketing.

- The Johnson government, fearful of Trump’s MAGA policy, wants a national solution. The British-Swedish AstraZeneca (AZ) with seat in Cambridge, UK, is selected since it can be controlled by the UK government.

- Oxford doesn’t like it because AZ has hardly any vaccine experience.

- AZ collects more than 2 billion dollars in government funding from the US, UK, the EU and other countries by pledging non-profit operations for the duration of the pandemic (until June 2021).

- Talks with the EU drag on because AZ wants a private litigation court instead of a judicial court in Brussels as jurisdiction. (European Civil Law emphasises the public interest while the Common Law of the Anglosphere emphasise private corporate interests. That’s why the EU/US TTIP talks failed in the past.)

- The British media hypes up AZ as the global frontrunner. AZ signs contracts for more than 3 billion doses of vaccines worldwide.

- Vaccine trials were badly designed and had to be halted due to deaths. Of the 4 trials, the US trial still hasn’t been completed.

- Vaccine dosing errors were first covered up to the public and then used to explain high efficacy (90%) achieved in a small UK trial as a fortunate accident. It was only later revealed that the 90% efficacy group didn’t include anybody older than 55 years of age. Vaccine efficacy is often lower in the elderly and the bigger trial only had 62% efficacy.

- Despite its non-profit pledge, AZ briefed groups of investors and pundits before informing national regulators and the public about technical issues.

- Based on patchy results from 2 trials, the UK regulator grants an emergency approval to get the vaccine first in December.

- AZ delays request for approval to the EU regulator to avoid supplying vaccine to the EU.

- One week before the EU regulator was to announce the AZ approval, AZ announces massive production shortages.

- The UK/AZ decide that the UK should get full deliveries while deliveries to the EU are cut by two thirds.

- The EU regulator approves the AZ vaccine for 60% efficacy, while national regulators advise not to use it for the elderly.

- The EU starts to investigate AZ for breach of contract. Investigators were sent to its factories and records of vaccine shipments are being audited.

- The US trial of the AZ vaccine is scheduled for readout in March and US approval is expected for April.

In conclusion, in line with its failed corona response, the Johnson government selected an unsuitable company in its push for vaccine nationalism.

Despite its non-profit pledge, AZ is secretive and keeps on making false or misleading statements to the media.

AZ has massively oversold:

The initial funding pledges from the US date back almost 9 months, yet the company has hardly enough vaccines to serve the UK even though it should have been supplying the US since December if the trials hadn’t been halted.

By now, AZ should be supplying hundreds of millions of doses to the US, the UK, the EU and others. By delaying its EU request for approval and thanks to its delayed trials in the US, the scale of the failure is only becoming apparent now.

Biontech/Pfizer had minor delays in their vaccine deliveries, but the delays are being made up by increased production. The EU initially ordered 400 million AZ doses and only 100 million Biontech/Pfizer doses (in addition to 4 other vaccines), but since the problems with AZ started to surface, additional orders were placed and the EU now has a total of 600 million Biontech/Pfizer vaccine orders. But there will be a shortfall of at least 100 million doses in the short term.

In the long term, AZ has shot itself in the foot despite its global PR campaign as the non-profit vaccine frontrunner.

New mutations will make low-efficacy vaccines like AZ useless. The new mRNA vaccines will rapidly replace other vaccine technologies.

The shady backroom deals between the UK government and UK industry remind me of the 70s when the British ruined their car industry.

Blunders Eroded US Confidence in Early Vaccine Front Runner

After Admitting Mistake, AstraZeneca Faces Difficult Questions About Its Vaccine

[Rugoz]

No, the issue is in what is regarded for the term "best effort". The shipment can come from the UK. But Astrazenica has a contract with the UK as well which according to Astrazenica is far more robust. So without falling into two sets of legal difficulties, they are fulfilling the UK quota. Which means this issue can only be resolved diplomatically. For Astrazenica would need some understanding from the UK government to send the EU shipments without the fear of being sued twice.

"Best effort" doesn't include violating other existng contracts. I also don't see where AstraZeneca assured that it won't be constrained by other contracts.

Besides, my country also gets less doses from AstraZeneca than "promised" but unlike the EU and Atlantis I don't whine and bitch about it.

[AFAIK]

I wonder if the EU expects Astra to violate the contracts of its employees and force them to work 100 hours per week until enough vaccines have been delivered. Given the massive overreaction to learning that the UK gov't already had a contract to order vaccines from a UK manufacturer I'm guessing they were.

[Atlantis]

@B0ycey, @Rugoz, "best effort" clauses mean the same in all contracts. The best effort clause in the EU/AZ agreement means the same as the best effort clause in the UK/AZ agreement.

A contract cannot be limited by unknown contracts with third parties. Therefore, the EU contract cannot be limited by a UK contract we don't know about.

If I sell you my house, I cannot tell you after receiving your payment that your contract is not valid because I already sold the house to a third person, which I didn't tell you about. That is fraud.

AstraZeneca is in breach of contract.

After the British weasel company defrauded the EU, the German vaccine maker Biontech is increasing production to make up for part of the vaccine shortfall.

Coronavirus: BioNTech-Pfizer pledges 75 million more EU vaccines

I wished the EU had never bought any AstraZeneca vaccines. This just goes to show that you'll always get screwed when you make contracts with British weasel companies.

The EU needs to sue AstraZeneca for the damages incurred due to the delayed vaccination.

[B0ycey]

@Atlantis

You posts really do need some fact checks sometimes. Astrazenica is half EU, no breach of contract has occurred until at least April, Astrazenica are most definitely putting their best effort in getting production set up within the EU and no you are wrong on the meaning of that term. Please stop making this about the British. I would class that as a rule 2 violation if I was a mod. And I am glad that Pfizer is making up for the shortfall. If you want a rant, don't @ me.

[Atlantis]

@Atlantis

You posts really do need some fact checks sometimes. Astrazenica is half EU, no breach of contract has occurred until at least April, Astrazenica are most definitely putting their best effort in getting production set up within the EU and no you are wrong on the meaning of that term. Please stop making this about the British. I would class that as a rule 2 violation if I was a mod. And I am glad that Pfizer is making up for the shortfall. If you want a rant, don't @ me.

I would class this thread as a rule 2 violation for EU-bashing.

Read my chronology of events. It's pretty clear what happens even if you refuse to see it. I specifically said that AstraZeneca is a British-Swedish company with seat in Cambridge that was chosen by the UK government to partner with Oxford (even though it has no vaccine experience) because it is under control of the British government. The events have proven it. AZ serves the UK before anybody else, while EU vaccines are exported to the UK and the world.

A British snake-oil company is screwing the EU in cohorts with the British government. What's so hard to understand about this?

Now the British media and the social media orchestrated by UK intelligence firms work themselves into a war frenzy for bashing the EU. But we are not allowed to talk about it because of British sensitivities? And the EU isn't allowed to defend itself by presenting the facts?

AZ makes its best effort for the UK and its worst effort for the EU. We cannot trust British companies, just like Johnson didn't trust a US company to partner with Oxford. The UK and the US both pursue blatant vaccine nationalism.

[B0ycey]

...But the EU is the topic.

@Atlantis, I like you but you are Anglophobic. I don't mind your posts. In fact I enjoy them. Nonetheless I don't see what the British have to do with this. And no, you mentioned it was a Swede-UK company once a few pages back. The last post was British companies in general. But if you hadn't had @ me I would have just ignored it like I usually do. So I get you're upset. But don't engage me when you are ranting. Because to me that is a sign we agree when clearly we don't.

[Varilion]

No, as I explained above, AstraZeneca has fulfilled its obligation towards the UK at the expense of deliveries to the EU.

AstraZeneca is in breach of contract. That is obvious.

Your first statement is a fact, no doubt about that. However, i am not sure that the contract breach is "that obvious". AstraZeneca has probably be too quick in signing contracts, but then the decision on who to prioritize has probably been based on a minimization of the legal consequences.