Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[BlueToff]

Yikes!

British factories should make up AstraZeneca vaccine supply, EU says

Deepening row over vaccines risks bitter EU-UK fallout

www.irishtimes.com

The EU don't have a leg to stand on.

They signed their deal with AZ 2-3 months after the UK. As part of the UK-AZ deal, AZ will use UK factories to supply Europe, but only after they have delivered on their 100m number to the UK.

EU shouldn't have 'dithered and delayed' for another 2-3 months for no reason, when four of its biggest member states had agreed the deal in principle.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Coronavirus more likely to spread inside through maskless talking than coughing | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Cambridge and Imperial researchers found that coronavirus is more likely to spread through prolonged talking than coughing in badly ventilated spaces.

www.imperial.ac.uk

 

[Alan Whittle]

Let's just agree to disagree.
My original point was for all the issues this government have caused and are responsible for during this pandemic they have been successful in the roll out of the vaccine. That's it really.

Agree with that.

 

[peteblue]

Makes me laugh this does.
How about if it was the other way around - how would the EU act then?

I think their suggested export licensing for Pfizer gives you a clue....

 

[peteblue]

Numbers for deaths pretty horrific today and the Tuesday inoculation rate lower than last Tuesday....

 

[tsubaki]

The EU don't have a leg to stand on.

They signed their deal with AZ 2-3 months after the UK. As part of the UK-AZ deal, AZ will use UK factories to supply Europe, but only after they have delivered on their 100m number to the UK.

EU shouldn't have 'dithered and delayed' for another 2-3 months for no reason, when four of its biggest member states had agreed the deal in principle.

"they don't have a leg to stand on" should never really be followed by "they signed their deal..."

They either have a deal by which AZ said they'd deliver something by a certain point (and therefore they have a leg to stand on) or they don't. When they signed the deal is not (and sorry for repeating myself) as important as what AZ said they were going to deliver and when. This is something we don't know, and won't until the contract is released.

If AZ said they'd try for 100m doses by Q1 2021 - and remember even AZ haven't denied saying that, just said it was an aim rather than a legally enforceable part of the contract - then AZ should be held accountable when they can't deliver it. In any other business or walk of life, except it seems British politics, making claims you cannot deliver on is something you should be criticized for.

All this talk about not being as quick as HMG to sign up, or delays due to EU central bureaucracy, or whatever is not relevant; it would only be relevant if AZ had said originally that they only have capacity for 40m because the rest of the capacity had already been contracted out to the UK or whoever.

 

[Billy Dean]

Yikes!

British factories should make up AstraZeneca vaccine supply, EU says

Deepening row over vaccines risks bitter EU-UK fallout

www.irishtimes.com

I do actually think the EU has a point here. If (and obviously that's a big if because we don't know exactly what's in the contract) a contract was signed guaranteeing the doses by a certain date, then you'd expect them to find a way to honour it if they have the capacity to,

 

[roydo]

"they don't have a leg to stand on" should never really be followed by "they signed their deal..."

They either have a deal by which AZ said they'd deliver something by a certain point (and therefore they have a leg to stand on) or they don't. When they signed the deal is not (and sorry for repeating myself) as important as what AZ said they were going to deliver and when. This is something we don't know, and won't until the contract is released.

If AZ said they'd try for 100m doses by Q1 2021 - and remember even AZ haven't denied saying that, just said it was an aim rather than a legally enforceable part of the contract - then AZ should be held accountable when they can't deliver it. In any other business or walk of life, except it seems British politics, making claims you cannot deliver on is something you should be criticized for.

All this talk about not being as quick as HMG to sign up, or delays due to EU central bureaucracy, or whatever is not relevant; it would only be relevant if AZ had said originally that they only have capacity for 40m because the rest of the capacity had already been contracted out to the UK or whoever.

A few points.

The EU have not even approved the AZ jab yet.

The issues were are plants in the EU.

Their Pfzior orders have also been affected.

I dont know the answer to all this, but even as a remainer, its looking like bit of a face palm moment for the EU.

 

[Neiler]

I do actually think the EU has a point here. If (and obviously that's a big if because we don't know exactly what's in the contract) a contract was signed guaranteeing the doses by a certain date, then you'd expect them to find a way to honour it if they have the capacity to,

In a way I think it will work itself out, because if there is a contract things are generally black and white with specific sanctions. I’ve not come across many contracts that say hopefully or we might, it’s just the nature of or what contracts are. I found the interview by the AZ CEO a bit weird and zany to be honest.

For me all eyes are on Friday, I’m becoming increasingly suspicious that the EMA might not sanction, AZ for over 65s, I’m just speculating of course, but I read a few interviews from a few EU health ministers, who seem to be politically putting the EMA in the firing line, when asked that specific question. Hopefully I’m being paranoid, because Europe could do with a third vaccine.

 

[Billy Dean]

A few points.

The EU have not even approved the AZ jab yet.

The issues were are plants in the EU.

Their Pfzior orders have also been affected.

I dont know the answer to all this, but even as a remainer, its looking like bit of a face palm moment for the EU.

I think in this case that's not relevant though. Yes the EU have made a mess of it. But a supplier entered into a legal agreement with them to supply a certain quantity of something by a certain date, then I think it's reasonable for them to expect the supplier to find another way of supplying it if there initial plan to do so has a problem.

But the big caveat here is that I'm not a lawyer lol

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[PhilM]

I think in this case that's not relevant though. Yes the EU have made a mess of it. But a supplier entered into a legal agreement with them to supply a certain quantity of something by a certain date, then I think it's reasonable for them to expect the supplier to find another way of supplying it if there initial plan to do so has a problem.

But the big caveat here is that I'm not a lawyer lol

I think the EU are right to be annoyed and demand an improvement, however AZ also have an agreement with the UK, which factually they agreed to first.

The point which came to mind for me is that it isn't unknown for companies to first honour the initial contract using domestic production rather than failing both?

I suspect if it was the other way around the EU would be saying the same and we'd be feeling like they are, but the situation wouldn't change.

 

[jonnyboy316]

I think in this case that's not relevant though. Yes the EU have made a mess of it. But a supplier entered into a legal agreement with them to supply a certain quantity of something by a certain date, then I think it's reasonable for them to expect the supplier to find another way of supplying it if there initial plan to do so has a problem.

But the big caveat here is that I'm not a lawyer lol

Surely though the UK also have a legally binding contract that was signed first so will need to be honoured first. Looks like we got our beach towel down first when it really mattered

 

[tsubaki]

A few points.

The EU have not even approved the AZ jab yet.

The issues were are plants in the EU.

Their Pfzior orders have also been affected.

I dont know the answer to all this, but even as a remainer, its looking like bit of a face palm moment for the EU.

A face palm moment certainly, but why are the companies not being the ones blamed here? In fact ordering hundreds of millions of doses of a vaccine they've not approved is actually the one logically valid criticism of the EU you've made there.

I mean we seem to be all blaming the EU because private industry hasn't delivered what it said it would, despite being paid to do it. Its crazy, especially in a country where private industry not delivering what it said it would despite being paid to do it is a valid definition of the past forty years of British government.

 

[Billy Dean]

In a way I think it will work itself out, because if there is a contract things are generally black and white with specific sanctions. I’ve not come across many contracts that say hopefully or we might, it’s just the nature of or what contracts are. I found the interview by the AZ a bit weird and zany to be honest.

For me all eyes are on Friday, I’m becoming increasingly suspicious that the EMA might not sanction, AZ for over 65s, I’m just speculating of course, but I read a few interviews from a few EU health ministers, who seem to be politically putting the EMA in the firing line, when asked that specific question. Hopefully I’m being paranoid, because Europe could do with a third vaccine.

Yeah hopefully. Could it be that might just provisionally approve for under 65s pending more data on those over?