EU unhappy with astrazeneca

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Supply of vials isn't dependent on the results of clinical trials,

If you mean the empty containers ready for the vaccines, I would agree with you.
And those empty vials are already produced for all the other vaccines, so are irrelevant.
However, if you mean the vials full of vaccine, then you're talking utter nonsense. You can't manufacture the vaccine to go into the vials until the clinical trials have been completed. Well, you could, but it might all be a totally wasted effort, financially and physically, and you might be left with copious amounts of dangerous vaccines. And that effort would be well spent elsewhere.

supply of the materials and chemicals used in the manufacture of the vaccine isn't dependent on clinical trials. Yet when you have an order in place and advance funding agreed to support this supply of materials and production capacity, you can get on with arranging it and ordering it earlier. This is exactly what happened with the AZ vaccine, as explicitly stated by the AZ CEO.

I'm afraid the AZ CEO doesn't have a great deal of reliability.
Unless, what he said about the UK contract restricting the supply of vaccine to EU was correct. Then the UK was to blame.
Then if he lied to the EU about there being no other contract that would be limit the supply to EU. Then both UK and AZ were to blame.

It's amazing how you think that signing of contract is irrelevant, but the fact remains that both vaccines that the UK signed deals for earlier than the EU were supplied to the UK earlier and in people's arms earlier.

Because they were approved earlier, and for no other reason, You can't use the vaccine until it has been approved, irrespective of when the contract was agreed.

 

[ajohn]

I just tried a simple search " astrazeneca vaccine deliveries by country " No luck at all and I suspect the same would apply to all of them. So the EU wants to monitor shipments to obtain transparency. They would like shipments from anywhere but can only exert control over the EU sources. They also seem to have persuaded AZ to upgrade plant or at least be clearer about it.

AZ CEO - why doesn't he produce numbers for what has been going where. They haven't met our orders either - even implied by Boris. Any party concened is likely to say things that suite them.

One interesting link popped up. It shows what any companies main interest is. Some of it at least is factual. I'd suspect all of it.
https://fortune.com/2021/01/25/astrazeneca-covid-vaccines-europe-deliveries-south-africa-price/

Then one of the links off it is this one. It explains another reason for countries being keen on AZ.
https://fortune.com/2020/12/18/how-much-europe-will-pay-each-covid-19-vaccine/

The companies involved are not charities. Their main interest is and always will be their shareholders and that means profit.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

One interesting link popped up. It shows what any companies main interest is. Some of it at least is factual. I'd suspect all of it.
https://fortune.com/2021/01/25/astrazeneca-covid-vaccines-europe-deliveries-south-africa-price/

The specific information from ajohn's link:

A day before, it emerged that South Africa will be paying $5.25 per dose for AstraZeneca vaccine as produced by the world's largest vaccine-maker, the Serum Institute of India. That's more than twice as much as far-richer European countries are paying, per a list that was accidentally leaked last month, and considerably more than the $3 price cap AstraZeneca promised in November.
​

Yes, it is possible that AZ diverted supplies to a higher bidder.
Were UK complicit, or did they ensure that they weren't complicit by stressing their impartiality in the affair?
There is certainly more than that expressed publicly, but we'll never know for sure.

 

[motorbiking]

Has there been evidence to back up the claim that vaccines were diverted to the UK from the EU? There may have been good reason given the vaccine hadn't been approved?

I've seen a few articles suggesting the problems were production issues in EU factories rather than supply diversion. As I understand it this vaccine is a bit like making bread - you have to get the yeast brew just right and can have a low yield batch if things go wrong.

The inspections certainly confirmed the issues.

btw - I bet that was really friggin helpful having an inspection/raid, while you are trying to work through production issues.

 

[ajohn]

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom may also be known as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons throw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top.[4][5]

 

[motorbiking]

The specific information from ajohn's link:

A day before, it emerged that South Africa will be paying $5.25 per dose for AstraZeneca vaccine as produced by the world's largest vaccine-maker, the Serum Institute of India. That's more than twice as much as far-richer European countries are paying, per a list that was accidentally leaked last month, and considerably more than the $3 price cap AstraZeneca promised in November.
​

Yes, it is possible that AZ diverted supplies to a higher bidder.
Were UK complicit, or did they ensure that they weren't complicit by stressing their impartiality in the affair?
There is certainly more than that expressed publicly, but we'll never know for sure.

Go back to the financial guidance - issued. 400m doses - not for profit for those who funded the development (i.e. not those who have since purchased it). This is for US, UK and few others, plus developing nations. EU does not fit in that category.

When you buy stock early on its cheap because its risky, when you buy late you pay more - that is not fundamentally unfair. The vaccine could well have failed, like so many others.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Has there been evidence to back up the claim that vaccines were diverted to the UK from the EU?

I understand it's a mutually agreed point of fact. Therefore it does not need evidence to support it, if it's an agreed principle.

There may have been good reason given the vaccine hadn't been approved?

The data was limited.

I've seen a few articles suggesting the problems were production issues in EU factories rather than supply diversion. As I understand it this vaccine is a bit like making bread - you have to get the yeast brew just right and can have a low yield batch if things go wrong.

it was this process earlier on, in UK, that required the supply from EU.
The reciprocation was refused by AZ, when EU requested it to compensate in the shortfall of production in EU plants.

The inspections certainly confirmed the issues.

Did they?

btw - I bet that was really friggin helpful having an inspection/raid, while you are trying to work through production issues.

That's what happens when you obfuscate.

 

[Lower]

If you mean the empty containers ready for the vaccines, I would agree with you.
And those empty vials are already produced for all the other vaccines, so are irrelevant.
However, if you mean the vials full of vaccine, then you're talking utter nonsense.

Of course i mean empty vials. I am amazed you even considered otherwise.

If we focus solely on the vials for a minute, other vaccines are not manufactured in anything like the volume that AZ is making the Oxford vaccine. So the vials were not available off the shelf and had to be sourced and ordered. The vials would then be on a lead time and would be required before the manufactured vaccine can be put into vials. I'm sure that AZ did not start the procurement process on the vials until a financial agreement was in place to make sure their costs were covered. Hence the vials for the UK manufactured vaccine were ordered well before the EU.

You can't just dismiss things as irrelevant just because they don't fit the story you want to tell.

I'm afraid the AZ CEO doesn't have a great deal of reliability.
Unless, what he said about the UK contract restricting the supply of vaccine to EU was correct. Then the UK was to blame.
Then if he lied to the EU about there being no other contract that would be limit the supply to EU. Then both UK and AZ were to blame.

There is a war of words going. If what has been reported is true, the UK contract with AZ says that the UK vaccines must be delivered before the UK factories can start supplying other countries. On that basis, the AZ CEO has not said anything untrue.

Because they were approved earlier, and for no other reason, You can't use the vaccine until it has been approved, irrespective of when the contract was agreed.

The AZ vaccine was ordered by the EU before it was approved in exactly the same way as the UK did, just 3 months later. AZ's establishment of production for the EU suppliers therefore started 3 months later. AZ has had production issues in the UK, Pfizer is having production issues. However, both started earlier and therefore are in a better position now.

 

[Lower]

I understand it's a mutually agreed point of fact. Therefore it does not need evidence to support it, if it's an agreed principle.

I have seen no evidence that the UK has been sent EU manufactured doses of the AZ vaccine. Where's your evidence?

Oh and i've quoted your post for future reference to use against you when you start trotting out your fake news accusations.

 

[Brigadier]

You can't just dismiss things as irrelevant just because they fit the story you want to tell.

Of course he can.
He'd have to agree with you otherwise.

 

[motorbiking]

I understand it's a mutually agreed point of fact. Therefore it does not need evidence to support it, if it's an agreed principle.



The data was limited.


it was this process earlier on, in UK, that required the supply from EU.
The reciprocation was refused by AZ, when EU requested it to compensate in the shortfall of production in EU plants.


Did they?


That's what happens when you obfuscate.

no I don't think that was true.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I have seen no evidence that the UK has been sent EU manufactured doses of the AZ vaccine. Where's your evidence?

It's a mutually agreed principle, so does not require the presentation of evidence.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

no I don't think that was true.

What was not true?

 

[Lower]

It's a mutually agreed principle, so does not require the presentation of evidence.

Its not agreed by me. I've seen the accusations from the EU reported in a number of places, but i've not seen any reported evidence.

Fake news by you i think.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Of course i mean empty vials. I am amazed you even considered otherwise.

If we focus solely on the vials for a minute, other vaccines are not manufactured in anything like the volume that AZ is making the Oxford vaccine. So the vials were not available off the shelf and had to be sourced and ordered. The vials would then be on a lead time and would be required before the manufactured vaccine can be put into vials. I'm sure that AZ did not start the procurement process on the vials until a financial agreement was in place to make sure their costs were covered. Hence the vials for the UK manufactured vaccine were ordered well before the EU.

Glad we got that sorted.
It's a bit like ordering some extra milk bottles.
No big deal. They're the same milk bottles everyone else uses, for orange juice, fizzy drinks, sauces, etc.

There is a war of words going.

Not any longer.

If what has been reported is true, the UK contract with AZ says that the UK vaccines must be delivered before the UK factories can start supplying other countries. On that basis, the AZ CEO has not said anything untrue.

In which case, he and UK lied.
He lied to EU when he agreed in their contract that there was no other contracts that could limit the supply to EU.
And UK lied when they said that their contract did not contain such clauses.

The AZ vaccine was ordered by the EU before it was approved in exactly the same way as the UK did, just 3 months later. AZ's establishment of production for the EU suppliers therefore started 3 months later. AZ has had production issues in the UK, Pfizer is having production issues. However, both started earlier and therefore are in a better position now.

Production could not begin prior to the successful conclusion of trials. The signing of contracts does not over-ride that.