EU unhappy with astrazeneca

[Notch7]

so any suggestion that order payments are used for the setting up the manufacturing process are a little tired

Really?

When did UK and EU pay money then?


I think you will find that pharmas were paid money by government to manufacture vaccines concurrently with testing to avoid delays.

Pharmas can't afford to make vaccines that might get rejected by the regulator unless they are guaranteed money either way. That's why time from approval to delivery has been so short.

 

[motorbiking]

The zero profit? That would appear to be down to funding provided by the EU. I don't know what we are paying and we provided funding as well as did some other countries. The other aspect that has been mentioned is how long the zero profit lasts.

it’s all public.

1.5bn US and U.K. plus Japan I think. Funded the development. AZ committed 400M doses not for profit. Priority goes to those early funders. The money was spent on the ramp up.

later on the EU bought in and their factories were commissioned. AZ have effectively been creating factories to serve local markets. It’s all on their website and the press releases at the time.

pfizer and moderna are leading sales. AZ and novavax followed by J&J are certainly in the leader’s quadrant with sanofi and GSK largely being ditched. The market is expected to decline to about 9bn by 2025.

As per Notch’s comment - there were two types of funding. No company no matter how public spirited will invest billions on a vaccine without being either able to make big profits to hedge the risk or cover the cost. The US/U.K. funding paid for the development and covered the risk in exchange for no margin on the product. Huge risk for tax payers as this vaccine might well have been a complete waste of money.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Really?

When did UK and EU pay money then?


I think you will find that pharmas were paid money by government to manufacture vaccines concurrently with testing to avoid delays.

Pharmas can't afford to make vaccines that might get rejected by the regulator unless they are guaranteed money either way. That's why time from approval to delivery has been so short.

I didn't mean that the arguments were incorrect, I meant that the arguments over who paid what and when, and what that money was used for, were a little tired.
All the money paid by the various parties all went into setting up the manufacturing processes.
Arguments about only UK money paid up front was used for the setting up process is a false argument.
EU money was available from August 2020 to setup EU plants, (and maybe UK plants, who knows) and the supply from those plants was used to support UK deliveries.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

it’s all public.

1.5bn US and U.K. plus Japan I think. Funded the development. AZ committed 400M doses not for profit. Priority goes to those early funders. The money was spent on the ramp up.

later on the EU bought in and their factories were commissioned. AZ have effectively been creating factories to serve local markets. It’s all on their website and the press releases at the time.

pfizer and moderna are leading sales. AZ and novavax followed by J&J are certainly in the leader’s quadrant with sanofi and GSK largely being ditched. The market is expected to decline to about 9bn by 2025.

As per Notch’s comment - there were two types of funding. No company no matter how public spirited will invest billions on a vaccine without being either able to make big profits to hedge the risk or cover the cost. The US/U.K. funding paid for the development and covered the risk in exchange for no margin on the product. Huge risk for tax payers as this vaccine might well have been a complete waste of money.

No priority order is written into the contracts.
For sure AZ's statement might indicate a priority order is awarded, but
a) this was denied to EU during contract negotiations, and AZ assured EU that there were no impediments (in the way of other contracts) to affect the supply and delivery of vaccines.
b) UK denied that there was any priority order given to supplying UK.

Therefore, either AZ were lying to EU during negotiations, (and by implication so were UK), or just AZ were lying on their website statement.

You also omitted this:

EU pays 336 million euros to secure AstraZeneca's potential COVID-19 vaccine
Dated, AUGUST 27, 2020
The deal covers development, liability and other costs faced by the vaccine maker. The EU has also secured an option to buy 100 million additional doses of the vaccine under development.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccine-price-idUSKBN25N25X
​

Additionally, no mention has been made in the contracts about local plants to supply local markets. The EU contract specifically mentioned that AZ would make best efforts to produce the vaccine in EU for EU supply, but there was no guarantee.

AZ appear to be rather misleading in their comments.
They do not have a good track record on honesty and transparency:

Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AstraZeneca

​

 

[motorbiking]

It can be true that a company can sign a contract with one customer to develop and create a product with the fruits going to that customer and separately sign a contract at a later date to do the same with another. These are not one man bands with limited resources.

do you think the EU would have allowed EU vaccine to meet U.K. shortfalls had the factory problems been the other way around?

the fact is the EU were too cautious and too late. We also don’t here them demanding US factories supply their shortfall. Nope it’s all about the politics of brexit must be bad and on this occasion it’s highlighted the reverse.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It can be true that a company can sign a contract with one customer to develop and create a product with the fruits going to that customer and separately sign a contract at a later date to do the same with another. These are not one man bands with limited resources.

But to deny that such a contract exists, or that that contract could affect the supply to another customer is deceitful, and would entail a breach of contract.
If that other customer is another government, and denies that such a contract clause exists, what does that suggest? That one or both are not being honest.

do you think the EU would have allowed EU vaccine to meet U.K. shortfalls had the factory problems been the other way around?

The supply to UK from EU plants occurred prior to AZ seeking approval from EU (EMA) so your question is invalid.

the fact is the EU were too cautious and too late.

The EMA approved the use of AZ vaccine two weeks after approval was sought by AZ.
We don't know how long UK took, but it looks like it could have been several months. (UK started cooperating with AZ in September and approved the vaccine on 30 December.)

We also don’t here them demanding US factories supply their shortfall. Nope it’s all about the politics of brexit must be bad and on this occasion it’s highlighted the reverse.

AZ have not yet sought approval from US (FDA), so any argument about shortfall in US, or from US is invalid.
AZ are not applying for approval from US until Spring at the earliest. And the US FDA process is different, in that they conduct their own tests, unconnected with the suppliers data.

 

[sxturbo]

But to deny that such a contract exists, or that that contract could affect the supply to another customer is deceitful, and would entail a breach of contract.
If that other customer is another government, and denies that such a contract clause exists, what does that suggest? That one or both are not being honest.


The supply to UK from EU plants occurred prior to AZ seeking approval from EU (EMA) so your question is invalid.


The EMA approved the use of AZ vaccine two weeks after approval was sought by AZ.
We don't know how long UK took, but it looks like it could have been several months. (UK started cooperating with AZ in September and approved the vaccine on 30 December.)


AZ have not yet sought approval from US (FDA), so any argument about shortfall in US, or from US is invalid.
AZ are not applying for approval from US until Spring at the earliest. And the US FDA process is different, in that they conduct their own tests, unconnected with the suppliers data.

where do you get your facts from, nothing you have said has been reported or even slightly true

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

where do you get your facts from, nothing you have said has been reported or even slightly true

I've provided links to all external sources. I invariably do.
Where do you get your facts from?
By all means provide alternative facts, to refute my comments, backed up with links to your sources.

For example:

i was referring to best efforts to produce the vaccine by a given date, which is why they started to scale up production 6 months ago.

your being obtuse for the sake of it, large sections of the contract have been posted on here, and you can read it on the EU's website. I've got the bookmarked version saved on my computer where the idiots at the eu left the book marks on that tells you what all the redacted statements are.

lol, UK cant win,

lambasted for being late with track and trace and lockdowns death rates etc,

now we are being pro-active and have a clear strategy, we are purchasing vaccines to ensure we do not have supply problems and we can get back to normal asap.

but because the beloved EU havnt done the, the UK are still ar se holes

etc.
And your links to your sources appear where?

 

[fillyboy]

How EU failed to plan for vaccines rollout (msn.com)

The UK committed £1.67billion on Covid vaccines before it was known whether they would be effective - more than the £1.57billion the EU spent on behalf of 27 countries, with Britain spending £25.00 per capita compared to £3.51 for Brussels.

The US government spent £7.9billion in total, according to the figures from science analytics firm Airfinity, an outlay of £24.02 for each of its 330million people.

Now that the jabs have passed their trials, it is mainland Europe which is struggling to ramp up vaccinations and feuding with AstraZeneca about supplies to the continent.

In addition, Brussels did not strike a deal with Pfizer until clinical trials had been concluded - while Britain and the US had deals in place in July 2020.

The UK now ranks third in the world with 13.2 per cent of the population getting at least one dose of a vaccine, while America is fifth on 7.6 per cent and the EU is languishing on 2.2 per cent.

French government minister Clement Beaune lashed out at Britain today by casting doubt on the UK's one-dose strategy, saying: 'I do not think that our citizens would accept us taking all these risks contrary to the opinion of our scientists'.

In fact, the UK's four chief medical officers have backed the one-dose strategy and said that a single shot offers 'considerable protection' at least in the short term.
Widely criticised for its handling of the pandemic, the UK government has boasted of its vaccine rollout as a rare success story in recent weeks.

Nearly nine million people in the UK have received a first dose of the vaccine after the UK switched strategies to hand out single doses to as many people as possible.

It comes after Britain spent nearly £1.67billion investing in vaccines and signed a deal in May 2020 to get the AstraZeneca vaccine developed with Oxford scientists.

As the EU row flared up last week, AstraZeneca's CEO Pascal Soriot pointed to Britain's earlier deal as a reason why the UK was enjoying uninterrupted supplies.

'The UK contract was signed three months before the European contract. So with the UK we have had an extra three months to fix all the glitches we experienced,' he said.

In addition, the UK described its deal for 30million Pfizer/BioNTech jabs last July as the company's 'first binding agreement signed with any government'.

When Pfizer's product became the first coronavirus vaccine approved in the West, it was Britain which handed out the historic first doses in early December.

The UK is also in line for 60million doses of another jab from Novavax, which will be made in Teesside and passed clinical trials last week.

However, the UK is behind the US and EU in getting hold of the Moderna vaccine, which is not expected to arrive in Britain until the spring.

 

[durhamplumber]

Maybe Ellal has been bullied off the forum.
Weird that some address him/her as female, and then proceed to bully him/her off the forum, don't you think?
It's almost as though they disagree with his/her contributions.

Robby...You know about 0.1% of the Ellal back story...He has been,for years, one of the most aggravating, irritating, down right unpleasant and insulting characters on here..So stick that in your musical instrument and form a tune.

 

[durhamplumber]

It's not a complete new beginning....we've just gone back to the 1970s

No comparison between 1970s Common Mkt and the EU entity it has morphed into.Best Thing UK has done for years...leaving..

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

How EU failed to plan for vaccines rollout (msn.com)

The UK committed £1.67billion on Covid vaccines before it was known whether they would be effective - more than the £1.57billion the EU spent on behalf of 27 countries, with Britain spending £25.00 per capita compared to £3.51 for Brussels.

The US government spent £7.9billion in total, according to the figures from science analytics firm Airfinity, an outlay of £24.02 for each of its 330million people.

Now that the jabs have passed their trials, it is mainland Europe which is struggling to ramp up vaccinations and feuding with AstraZeneca about supplies to the continent.

In addition, Brussels did not strike a deal with Pfizer until clinical trials had been concluded - while Britain and the US had deals in place in July 2020.

The UK now ranks third in the world with 13.2 per cent of the population getting at least one dose of a vaccine, while America is fifth on 7.6 per cent and the EU is languishing on 2.2 per cent.

French government minister Clement Beaune lashed out at Britain today by casting doubt on the UK's one-dose strategy, saying: 'I do not think that our citizens would accept us taking all these risks contrary to the opinion of our scientists'.

In fact, the UK's four chief medical officers have backed the one-dose strategy and said that a single shot offers 'considerable protection' at least in the short term.
Widely criticised for its handling of the pandemic, the UK government has boasted of its vaccine rollout as a rare success story in recent weeks.

Nearly nine million people in the UK have received a first dose of the vaccine after the UK switched strategies to hand out single doses to as many people as possible.

It comes after Britain spent nearly £1.67billion investing in vaccines and signed a deal in May 2020 to get the AstraZeneca vaccine developed with Oxford scientists.

As the EU row flared up last week, AstraZeneca's CEO Pascal Soriot pointed to Britain's earlier deal as a reason why the UK was enjoying uninterrupted supplies.

'The UK contract was signed three months before the European contract. So with the UK we have had an extra three months to fix all the glitches we experienced,' he said.

In addition, the UK described its deal for 30million Pfizer/BioNTech jabs last July as the company's 'first binding agreement signed with any government'.

When Pfizer's product became the first coronavirus vaccine approved in the West, it was Britain which handed out the historic first doses in early December.

The UK is also in line for 60million doses of another jab from Novavax, which will be made in Teesside and passed clinical trials last week.

However, the UK is behind the US and EU in getting hold of the Moderna vaccine, which is not expected to arrive in Britain until the spring.

You omitted to provide the source of your information, fillyboy, not surprisingly:

I've advised you several times on believing everything you read on alternative media sites.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

No comparison between 1970s Common Mkt and the EU entity it has morphed into.Best Thing UK has done for years...leaving..

And put the UK back into its position it was in before it joined.
Brilliant move.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Robby...You know about 0.1% of the Ellal back story...He has been,for years, one of the most aggravating, irritating, down right unpleasant and insulting characters on here..So stick that in your musical instrument and form a tune.

I suspect anyone that provides an alternative viewpoint eventually resembles your description due to the heckling and bullying they receive for daring to hold an alternative opinion.
I think we've explored the probability already for those treated as outcasts tend to eventually fit the image. Whether they actually morph into that image, or whether the majority viewpoint assumes a consensus of opinion is, currently, an issue of contention.

Of course the way to avoid such bullying, heckling and forcing the adoption of such images (by either process, whichever is the correct version) is to restrict the discussion to the issues, rather than attack the proponent. But I guess that's never going to happen on here.

 

[durhamplumber]

And put the UK back into its position it was in before it joined.
Brilliant move.

As said...Lucky escape from federalism...No longer a common mkt. .More the United States of Germany...France always was a bit subserviant to Germany .