Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[BlueToff]

Well considering we left the EU at 11pm on 31st January 2020 which was 7 months previous to this, you would have thought someone would have noticed

Well, I know we had 'left' but, we left left on 1 Jan this year didn't we

 

[Blues Harp]

Well, I know we had 'left' but, we left left on 1 Jan this year didn't we

OK mate..

 

[BlueToff]

That’s my point, the EU are playing games when they needn’t. I know it’s desperate times but they don’t need to go down this road when there a number of alternative vaccines available. I’m pro EU but they can lick our spuds when it comes to this and I hope we tell them that.

I just don't think the UK government are needing to get involved unless the EU start blocking things or whatever (if that's what they're doing).

If they have concrete evidence that AZ were taking stocks from their plants in Europe to boost the UK stocks, that's different. But, it doesn't actually seem they do. They are just alleging it. Well, if that's going to stand up in court, then they'll need evidence.

 

[Tubey]

Thing is, they didn't actually commit to a number. This is the issue. The EU Commission are insisting they did. But the contract is really, really woolly, and all it says is a "best effort".

I feel both parties are at fault but there isn't actually any commitment to a number. There's a commitment to 'try their best' to hit a number. Which, in my book, is absolutely mental for the EU Commission to have agreed to?

Also, there is a clause about taking stocks from 'other EU nations' (I'm paraphrasing) to stock up the EU stocks if needed - clearly meaning the UK. However, the UK is no longer an EU nation, and surely when the contract was signed in August, the EU would have known that the UK would no longer be an EU nation by the time the vaccine roll out began in earnest?

No, each sovereign nation can, in theory, do their own vaccine acquisition. Its why we could before leaving. The central EU acquisition model was opt in on paper, albeit pretty much mandatory in practice.

So if a nation went rogue and ordered 100m, the EU could step in and take it.

Not very nice but understandable. A protective measure.

 

[BlueToff]

OK mate..

Haha.

Well whatever happened on Jan 1 this year, that was the definitive end of the UK being a part of the EU. Whatever happened in Jan 2020 clearly wasn't.

 

[random]

Well, I know we had 'left' but, we left left on 1 Jan this year didn't we

I know what you mean mate

was just pointing out that even some of the EU folks in the back of their mind probably thought we were still in their orbit

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

They've completely torn up the rule book on Pfizer;'s jab schedule and they have made the UK effectivley a giant lab to test the AZ vaccine as far as older groups are concerned.

They are huge risks they are taking.

You might applaud them for it, but I wont.

You opting for the Sputnik vaccine then Dave!

 

[tsubaki]

I have no issue with the Commission taking over for their other member states, but why not just say to the four countries to crack on and then use their deal as a basis?

Also, the contract they did sign after two months of negotiations is the very thing which has enabled AZ to reduce and actually have a legal battle to fight.

Amid a deepening row, the [heavily redacted] EU-AstraZeneca contract has been published

The contract contains over a dozen uses of the phrase “best reasonable efforts”, and has redacted any mention of costs.

www.thejournal.ie

AstraZeneca has defended its announcement that it wouldn’t be able to deliver as many vaccines to the EU in the first quarter of the year by saying that the contract only committed it to making its “best effort” to deliver.

The published contract cites fifteen uses of the term “Best Reasonable Efforts”.

In the contract, it states that as part of the scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed “to use its Best Reasonable Efforts to build capacity to manufacture 300 million doses of the vaccine”, with an option for the Commission to order an additional 100 million doses.

It also states in the contract that “Best Reasonable Efforts” is defined as: “the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development”.

This phrasing is used regularly throughout the document and is a key part of the row between the pharma company and the European Union.

How did they take 2 months to agree a contract which is basically based on semantics?

TBF that definition has been rather misleadingly (and shamefully) truncated - the contract actually says (emphasis added):

"the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restriction on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety;"

... which rather changes what "best effort" means here (edit), at least in terms of what that article claims.

 

[BlueToff]

No, each sovereign nation can, in theory, do their own vaccine acquisition. Its why we could before leaving. The central EU acquisition model was opt in on paper, albeit pretty much mandatory in practice.

So if a nation went rogue and ordered 100m, the EU could step in and take it.

Not very nice but understandable. A protective measure.

But if the UK is no longer in the EU, then just because they were at the time, does that give the EU scope?

Manufacturing sites

On the use of the UK manufacturing sites, the contract states that Astrazeneca shall use its “best reasonable efforts” to manufacture the vaccine at manufacturing sites in the EU – which, for the purposes of this part of the contract “shall include the United Kingdom”.

The contract states:

“If AstraZeneca is unable to deliver on its intention to manufacture the Initial Europe doses and/or optional doses under this Agreement in the EU, the Commission or the participating Member States may present to AstraZeneca, contract manufacturing organisations (CMOs) within the EU capable of manufacturing the vaccine doses, and AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to contract with such proposed CMOs to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU.”

 

[BlueToff]

TBF that definition has been rather misleadingly (and shamefully) truncated - the contract actually says (emphasis added):

"the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restriction on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety;"

... which rather changes what "best effort" means here (edit), at least in terms of what that article claims.

That article is an Irish one - the quotes in it are mostly EU friendly so don't think it's biased either way, just trying to get the key points across.

How does anybody define 'best effort', though?

Genuine question. We can accuse Gylfi Sigurdsson of not giving his best effort, but he would say he did. How do we prove he hasn't?

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

They've completely torn up the rule book on Pfizer;'s jab schedule and they have made the UK effectivley a giant lab to test the AZ vaccine as far as older groups are concerned.

They are huge risks they are taking.

You might applaud them for it, but I wont.

We could all end up living on Dr Moreau island, sometimes think we are, often these days.

 

[Tubey]

But if the UK is no longer in the EU, then just because they were at the time, does that give the EU scope?

Manufacturing sites

On the use of the UK manufacturing sites, the contract states that Astrazeneca shall use its “best reasonable efforts” to manufacture the vaccine at manufacturing sites in the EU – which, for the purposes of this part of the contract “shall include the United Kingdom”.

The contract states:

No, once we left the EU we ceased to be an EU entity. The vaccine for the EU is still manufactured to a degree in the UK, so that part of the contract is beinf met, but we aren't subject to the EU Commission.

 

[tsubaki]

That article is an Irish one - the quotes in it are mostly EU friendly so don't think it's biased either way, just trying to get the key points across.

How does anybody define 'best effort', though?

Genuine question. We can accuse Gylfi Sigurdsson of not giving his best effort, but he would say he did. How do we prove he hasn't?

Its kind of a big edit to make there, though - it completely changes the context of the quote.

As for the "best effort" issue, yes it will be a topic of debate but I really think in the full text it will be very hard for AZ to say that they've made their best effort there - I mean, to take the UK as an example they are not (at least as far as I can see) reliant on one plant.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Whats the chances of all this nonsense affecting our vaccine programme?

If the EU start playing silly buggers what can we do?

@Tubey

 

[random]

Genuine question. We can accuse Gylfi Sigurdsson of not giving his best effort, but he would say he did. How do we prove he hasn't?

watch the match again ?