Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[BlueToff]

"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.

You've surely seen my other post on this, with the direct quotes?

I don't see how you can say all of the rest is irrelevant?

The UK deal with AZ seemingly (because obviously I haven't seen it for sure but going off direct quotes) explicitly outlines that the UK factories must not be used for any other purpose than the UK dosage until AZ have fulfilled their initial UK order.

So no, the EU simply do not have anything to go off because that deal was signed with the UK well before AZ signed their 'best effort' deal with the EU.

The EU have no right to demand anything of the UK factories, just like if the EU signed their deal with Moderna first, then Moderna's priority will be to deliver their vaccines to the EU over the UK. Again, it depends how the contract will be worded and yes, we don't currently know for sure, but I doubt the AZ CEO would so publically lie when directly quoting the contract.

I actually think, if you read the piece, then there's plenty of times that the AZ CEO accepts responsibility and criticism. He even says 'it's not enough'. But there are evident reasons for that. I also think it's right for the EU to be miffed, but they don't have any right to demand AZ start sending vaccines their way just like we wouldn't if it was the other way round.

 

[Billy Dean]

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.

Yeah I'm not an expert. Just thinking in a business context. If a supplier doesnt produce what you pay them to produce, then what agreements that supplier has elsewhere is probably not your concern. But yes if they don't have capacity to produce both at the UK factory then the UK should be prioritised I would've thought. And then the EU has to decide how it proceeds from there.

 

[PhilM]

Yeah I'm not an expert. Just thinking in a business context. If a supplier doesnt produce what you pay them to produce, then what agreements that supplier has elsewhere is probably not your concern. But yes if they don't have capacity to produce both at the UK factory then the UK should be prioritised I would've thought. And then the EU has to decide how it proceeds from there.

So the issue will likely be financial in terms of compensation for the failure or breach of contract etc.

 

[roydo]

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.

I havnt seen the contract, so no idea.

Was there a date for delivery of 100m or whatever it was? Production issues cos of internal stuff in a factory is hardly unheard of is it?

 

[davek]

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

What, like in restaurants where people gab away for hours on end?

GOT SAGE Committee - this cant be true, surely?

 

[BlueToff]

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.

It just seems like a really strange decision on the EU Commission's part in relation to the AZ vaccine, is all. The approach seems crazy.

The EU Commission insisted on taking responsibility. It insisted on renegotiating when four countries already had an agreement in place just one month after the UK had their agreement in place. If it was good enough for the four countries initially, why could they not have taken on that agreement for them, and the EU used that as a basis for the other member states if needed? Instead of saying no to Germany, Italy, France and Netherlands, and insisting they renegotiate on their behalf? Surely each country in the EU will have its own various agreements in place with supply etc anyway?

 

[Neiler]

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

They definitely could, that’s what I’m suspicious of. I think many events this week might have been softening up and flying kites around that outcome. That’s just me speculating and interpreting. The data on over 65s was positive but limited in the data they published. I think they’d admit that themselves. AZ did though submit additional data with the European application, which is why it took them so long to make the application.

It might mean the EU continue to use Moderna and Pfizer for over 65s and AZ for I don’t know under 60s.

Im just speculating and interpreting politically though, I hope the data is there and it gets full approval, Europe could do with a third vaccine option.

 

[LinekersLegs]

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.

Don’t think the FDA will be approving any use of AZ until the full Phase 3 US trials are complete later in Feb (which involve a bigger share of +65s iirc).

Perhaps EU might approve for <65s and then await that US test data and UK results to decide on expanding?

 

[Billy Dean]

So the issue will likely be financial in terms of compensation for the failure or breach of contract etc.

Yeah maybe. Who knows really. In the business world you'd have penalties for late delivery or something like that I guess.

 

[tsubaki]

You've surely seen my other post on this, with the direct quotes?

I don't see how you can say all of the rest is irrelevant?

The UK deal with AZ seemingly (because obviously I haven't seen it for sure but going off direct quotes) explicitly outlines that the UK factories must not be used for any other purpose than the UK dosage until AZ have fulfilled their initial UK order.

So no, the EU simply do not have anything to go off because that deal was signed with the UK well before AZ signed their 'best effort' deal with the EU.

The EU have no right to demand anything of the UK factories, just like if the EU signed their deal with Moderna first, then Moderna's priority will be to deliver their vaccines to the EU over the UK. Again, it depends how the contract will be worded and yes, we don't currently know for sure, but I doubt the AZ CEO would so publically lie when directly quoting the contract.

I actually think, if you read the piece, then there's plenty of times that the AZ CEO accepts responsibility and criticism. He even says 'it's not enough'. But there are evident reasons for that. I also think it's right for the EU to be miffed, but they don't have any right to demand AZ start sending vaccines their way just like we wouldn't if it was the other way round.

Because it isn't that relevant to this.

The issue here is that they have two contracts, and they've ended up promising (or at least heavily implying) two things to two parties that they cannot now both deliver at the same time. They are delivering one thing to one party, but can't deliver the second thing to the second party (at least fully).

The EU are - as we would be - entirely within their rights to go after AZ for not delivering what they agreed to do. If AZ stopped deliveries to us because of the EU action, we would be entirely within our rights to go after AZ. If we signed a deal for Moderna and they diverted it to the EU, we would be entirely within our rights to go after Moderna. In the latter two cases I doubt anyone (or at least the people making the anti-EU argument here) would be defending the firm.

The rest is, sadly, just spin put about to try and obscure where the fault lies here.

 

[BlueToff]

I havnt seen the contract, so no idea.

Was there a date for delivery of 100m or whatever it was? Production issues cos of internal stuff in a factory is hardly unheard of is it?

I thought the issue was that AZ had hoped to deliver 80m doses by end of March 2021. That's been reduced to 31m.

EU rightly peeved, but it seems like, going off what has been said by both AZ and the EU reps, that it was a 'best effort' contract. I'm no expert in contracts, but the way the AZ CEO explains it (appreciate it's only one side) they made it clear when the deal was signed that due to the 2-month delay that came about in signing the contract, then the risk of them having yield issues would be expanded.

He said there has been issues in the US which they think they have resolved, and there were issues in the UK that they have now resolved, helped by the fact that they had a 3-month extra agreement in place with the UK than they did in the EU.

He also said that 'drug production' in Germany and Italy is going well, but it is the 'drug substance' (so I think that means the creation of the vaccine itself) at their plants in Belgium and Holland are what have had yield issues. If they had had that extra few months, that could have made a massive difference.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think AZ have come out smelling of roses, but the EU have little right to be demanding that AZ send doses across from the UK - which is a totally separate deal altogether - to compensate for that. Same as the UK has little right to demand Pfizer send over stocks from EU orders.

 

[tsubaki]

I havnt seen the contract, so no idea.

Was there a date for delivery of 100m or whatever it was? Production issues cos of internal stuff in a factory is hardly unheard of is it?

it absolutely isn't, but surely there you blame the firm responsible

 

[BlueToff]

https://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/...covid-19_vaccine_deliveries_to_the_eu_1361854 @roydo a piece there from a few days back

 

[PhilM]

it absolutely isn't, but surely there you blame the firm responsible

You do and I'm sure there'll be penalties that will be talked about while AZ will have be pointing to some obscure caveats in their agreements.

It doesn't change the situation however that AZ can't magic up extra vaccines. I bought a car from Audi that was once delayed a fair few weeks.

I was annoyed, I argued and complained but they didn't give me someone else's car at their expense; I just got lots of free petrol and some shiny mats.

 

[roydo]

it absolutely isn't, but surely there you blame the firm responsible

Depends on the contract. Which no one has seen.

I mean you are correct that supply of the stuff is 100% on AZ and Pfzior, but I find it "interesting" that the EU have piled onto one, but not the other.