[HN Gopher] AstraZeneca/EU contract ___________________________________________________________________ AstraZeneca/EU contract Author : hannob Score : 143 points Date : 2021-01-29 18:18 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (fragdenstaat.de) (TXT) w3m dump (fragdenstaat.de) | ape4 wrote: | "AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as | defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses | of the Vaccine, at no profit and no loss to AstraZeneca, at the | total cost currently estimated to be ** Euros for distribution | within the EU" | hannon4 wrote: | Seems much more convoluted than the pzifer contract with Israel. | s_dev wrote: | The fact that the EU and UK are already fighting illustrates how | imporant the EU is. Imagine if the EU didn't intervene in the | vaccine programme and it was 28 rich countries trying argue to 28 | contracts with AZ instead of just two -- and all the complexity | that emerged from just two contracts. | PJDK wrote: | The EU is fighting with Astrazenica. The UK has mostly kept out | of it - only just commenting once the EU decided to change | export rules and around the Northern Ireland agreement. | UK-Al05 wrote: | I'm thinking a lot of countries are regretting joining the EU | vaccination scheme considering how slow it's been. | [deleted] | hannob wrote: | To explain what this is: The EU mistakenly uploaded a censored | version of the contract earlier today where some blacked out | parts could be reconstructed using PDF metadata. | | This version has those included in red. | raverbashing wrote: | Not sure if it was the EU or AZ that did the (failed) | redaction. (Yes, despite the fact that it was published on an | EU website) | | Anyway it seems that orgs keep falling for the "PDF redaction" | caveats | vinay427 wrote: | To be fair, I've grown paranoid about PDF metadata and | redactions, so I prefer taking screenshots and making a new | PDF out of those as long as the document is only a few pages | in length, or using imagemagick or similar to flatten it. I | haven't found an easier way to be absolutely sure that my | annotations are permanent, and this metadata issue is perhaps | even trickier. | toast0 wrote: | Print, review, and scan is probably easier than | screenshotting, if you have the equipment. | tormeh wrote: | That this is the state of things is pretty amazing | ur-whale wrote: | PDF is a shitty format. | | As proof, I offer: can't grep on it. | | Which, BTW, if it was possible, would have prevented this | mess. | statquontrarian wrote: | Linux has a pdfgrep command which works pretty well | (unless the PDF has images of text). | ur-whale wrote: | Unless the PDF has every letter placed by independent | PostScript like commands or - worse - text has been | imported from an SVG file. | | pdfgrep is at best probabilistic and I stand by my | comment.. | Aerroon wrote: | And yet it is the format documents are in. Government | websites are full of PDFs. | [deleted] | exhilaration wrote: | If you have a scanner, the easiest way is to take the | redacted version provided by your attorneys, print it, then | scan it through a document feeder to PDF. Nobody's | reconstructing anything from that. | [deleted] | [deleted] | lhnz wrote: | AstraZeneca is currently struggling to produce 2 million doses a | week for the UK [0]. How does the EU expect to use UK production | to shore up a shortfall of 49 million doses that they require in | February/March? | | The doses that exist in the UK only exist because of a | manufacturing ramp up done under their own contract during the | period of time that the EU was still negotiating a lower price. | How does it make sense that a separate contract with AstraZeneca | allows them to then get the doses produced for the UK re- | allocated to another contract? | | The Commission is only entitled to those doses that AZ have, | after best reasonable efforts, produced for them under their | contract. This attempt to grab doses only in existence because of | another prior contract is a disgrace. | | [0] https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1505/html/ | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | >> AstraZeneca is currently struggling to produce 2 million | doses a week for the UK [0]. How does the EU expect to use UK | production to shore up a shortfall of 49 million doses that | they require in February/March? | | IANAL but it seems to be part of the agreement. From the posted | pdf: | | _5.4 Manufacturing sites | | AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to | manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within | the EU (which, for the purpose of this Section 5.4 only shall | include the United Kingdom) (...)_ | | In short, AstraZeneca agreed to use UK facilities to | manufacture doses for the EU. | | >> The doses that exist in the UK only exist because of a | manufacturing ramp up done under their own contract while the | EU was still negotiating a lower price. | | Presumably, AstraZeneca agreed to provide a certain number | (censored in the pdf above) of doses to the EU after | AstraZeneca had initiated the "ramp up" you describe. They did | not object to selling those doses that were manufacture during | the "ramp up" to the EU. The contract doesn't mention any ramp | up at all. | [deleted] | damagednoob wrote: | I guess it comes down to the legal interpretation of "Best | Reasonable Efforts". | flipbrad wrote: | I've been a lawyer for quite some time, and I can't recall | the last time I saw this phrase used. I'm not sure I ever | have. | kerneis wrote: | The term is capitalized, which means it is defined in the | first section of the document, more precisely on p. 3 in | that case: | | 1.9. "Best Reasonable Efforts" means (a) in the case of | AstraZeneca, 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, restrictions on personal | freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking | into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of | the Commission and the Participating Member States, the | activities and degree of effort that governments would | undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the | development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent | need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is | resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions | on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the | world. | matthewheath wrote: | "Best Reasonable Efforts" is defined in clause 1.9 of the | contract: | | > 1.9. "Best Reasonable Efforts" means (a) in the case of | AstraZeneca, 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, restrictions on personal | freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking | into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of | the Commission and the Participating Member States, the | activities and degree of effort that governments would | undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the | development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need | for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting | in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal | freedoms and economic impact, across the world. | | On this basis, AZ can argue that they have indeed made | reasonable best efforts to manufacture the vaccine within | the EU: I believe most vaccine companies are struggling to | fulfil their targets at the moment because of things like a | shortage of supplies, worker sickness because of | coronavirus, etc. It would seem to be difficult for the | Commission to point to a company who's doing it any better | except perhaps US-based companies. | | Furthermore the contract does not mark their UK | manufacturing facilities as being exclusively for the EU - | AZ can then argue that this contract is naturally subject | to available resources in their UK manufacturing facilities | and so, given this is a condition precedent, their | obligations under this part of the contract have not become | due just yet. | 7952 wrote: | That does not say anything about exclusivity of doses. It | just states that manufacturing has to occur in particular | places. What the EU gets out of this is parity between | different purchasers within the group. | | Also it doesn't seem reasonable to expect AZ to ignore other | contracts. | lhnz wrote: | > In short, AstraZeneca agreed to use UK facilities > | to manufacture doses for the EU. | | Section 5.1 of the PDF seems to imply that the "Initial | Europe Doses" are to be manufactured within Europe [0] | "following EU marketing authorization". | | Section 5.4 which you quote from specifies that "this section | _only_ shall include the United Kingdom ". As written, this | section does not relate to the distribution of the initial | doses in Section 5.1, but instead is about where AstraZeneca | _could_ choose to manufacture the vaccine. That is why it | explains the process by which they might get prior written | notice for non-EU manufacturing sites, and discusses how they | could be contracted with if they are unable to deliver doses. | | I think that gives them some leeway to ask AstraZeneca to | increase capacity in the EU, but it strongly suggests to me | that the capacity has meant to come from EU facilities, | particularly for the "Initial Europe Doses". | | Somebody also linked to this [1] which implies that | AstraZeneca stated that they would have no other contracts | that should conflict with the "Initial Europe Doses", | however, I can imagine AstraZeneca will argue that this is | achieved by segregating production in the initial doses stage | and that the problem is due to low yields in the EU | facilities and not due to competing arrangements. | [0] | https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1355120024378335238 | [1] | https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1355137923411279878 | Closi wrote: | Thanks - your explanation gives a lot of clarity. | | I assume a lot of people are reading it as "the EU is | defined as just the U.K. for the purpose of this section" | but you are right that it's just saying "this section is | about the U.K., not the EU" | calpaterson wrote: | The EU's approach to resolving this dispute makes absolutely no | sense. | | Regardless of the fact that, this contract does not, to my | reading (IANAL), support their position that they have a claim | over the UK-produced vaccines: pursuing a legal resolution seems | silly because getting a judgement in your favour will take weeks | or months. That is far too long for the timelines the EU wants. | | Then, even if such a judgment is forthcoming - you still aren't | that much closer to getting more doses because as any solicitor | will tell you, possession is nine tenths of the law and the doses | are in the UK. There is no realistic chance of any export | occurring without the approval of the UK government. The UK has a | very serious outbreak of coronavirus too. | | Instead of getting on their high horse and starting an enormous | public row why don't the EU: a) recognise that this is one of | many vaccines and that perhaps, while important, is not | singularly important to the effort b) make an arrangement with | the UK government to have some kind of expedited access to | vaccines? The UK will soon have a surplus of vaccines (and in | fact has extra stock already by some accounts - people are being | given unused doses). There is an existing trade issue that is | causing problems for the UK that I am sure that the UK would like | to get sorted... | | This kind of over-legalistic attitude is how the EU got into this | hole in the first place. Waiting for a single purchase agreement | was a mistake because the vaccines have (mostly) turned out to be | extremely cheap and the fact that many companies are working on | vaccines likely means that none will be able to charge over the | odds. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | >> Regardless of the fact that, this contract does not, to my | reading (IANAL), support their position that they have a claim | over the UK-produced vaccines: (...) | | See my other comment here. IANAL either, but it seems this was | part of the agreement. From the pdf above: | | _5.4 Manufacturing sites | | AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to | manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within | the EU (which, for the purpose of this Section 5.4 only shall | include the United Kingdom) (...)_ | | AstraZeneca agreed to use the UK sites to produce vaccines for | the EU. | calpaterson wrote: | It's a big step from agreeing to use UK sites as part of | "Best Reasonable Efforts" to the EU having the right to | recieve certain manufacture from UK sites. | | Anyway, as I said: it's totally irrelevant as no amount of | litigating the contents of their contract will get them what | they want. They want doses that are inside the borders of a | third country. That third country also has designs on those | doses the EU is not in their good books. | | It requires a political solution, not a legal one - but try | telling the commission that, apparently. | alibarber wrote: | I think your proposal is what will end up happening. | | Johnson has refused to commit to blocking exports of the | vaccine. He's a long way from my preffered politician, but | people who describe him as a British Trump are wrong. He is no | idiot (1). He knows he's been handed a politically interesting | situation and is also aware of what state the UK is in with | regard to vaccine supply (one of the best in the world at this | time) and what benefits some careful political manoeuvering | will be able to bring in this time. | | Allow me some hyperbole, but the optics of 'Generous UK offers | salve to unfortunate vaccine-poverty stricken EU' - whilst | sickening would make for some lovely press in the right-wing | tabloids and might even go a little way towards his desired | 'comming together' of a divided nation. | | (1) Yes - Brexit was indeed idiotic but I truly believe he | never actually wanted it, and it just got him his longed-for | premiership by unfortunate accidental means. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | He fumbled and stumbled into premiership- but now he's going | to be capable of "some careful political manoeuvering". The | man who made his career as a journalist by badmouthing the | EU? I find this very unlikely. | alibarber wrote: | Yes, I guess it's a bit of a push, and maybe I'm grasping | at straws here. But the man is insincere in everything he | does, and I'd include his badmouthing the EU in that. | | He'll do what he thinks is best for his vote share, and my, | admittedly amateur, reading of this situation is that he | might well make a trade off in that direction. Although the | latest news from Northern Ireland might be rocking the boat | a bit too much. We'll just have to see I guess - but these | days I'll expect anything. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | Who knows, you may be right. That would actually be the | best outcome, regardless of the Comission losing face and | Boris getting bragging rights. | peteretep wrote: | > He fumbled and stumbled into premiership | | He took a razor-thin majority and turned it into a huge | one. He's PM because he ruthlessly executed a plan to | become it. He won almost every brinkmanship point with the | EU that he took on over the last year. | | He's not who I want as PM, and I think his record is | dismal, but if you think he "fumbled and stumbled" his way | in then you've fallen for his con: he's bright and | ruthless. | sbuk wrote: | He did so against the weakest opposition, overwhelmed | with infighting and a lacklustre leader, seen in a | generation, campaigning solely on the notion of "Getting | Brexit Done (tm)" (barely) after 4 years of MPs arguing | about it. Traditional Labour seats were lost based on | Brexit fence-sitting. They will revert, especially as | those constituents are slowly realising that getting | Brexit done meant screwing them over. Johnson's Tories | didn't so much win, it was essentially a one horse race. | jariel wrote: | I think the 'political optics' win for Johnson is going to | more likely be: "We are the first major country to reach near | full vaccination". | | Bibi in Israel is facing intense political ambiguity, and | they are paying 3-4x (for the vaccines) what other countries | are paying, and have apparently been doing some behind the | scenes shenanigans for acquisition, I mean it's Isreal, | that's what they do (no offence to those who might take it | that way but they are the most realpolitik country on planet | earth). They are _way_ ahead of anyone else and I suggest | this is Bibi 's political salvation plan. | | Boris, similarly. | | It's a little bit conspiratorial, but wouldn't be surprised | if there are some behind the scenes actions by UK gov. to | make sure the UK is first. | | Also consider that the EU is frankly playing a losing hand | and they look really bad from this. | | This is a major existential crisis and if China, US and UK | end up with full vaccinations months ahead of the EU it's | going to be very, very damaging. | | At minimum, the EU has to make a very big public stink about | it to ensure people know/believe that the EU is doing what is | possible, to mitigate the damage and possibly to be able to | push the blame a little bit to others. | | Finally - there's nothing wrong with the UK offering the EU | help, and that it would also end up being good PR. The | problem with the claim is not that it's 'sickening' but | rather it's frankly not a huge material PR win. It's a nice | thing but it's only worth a news cycle or two. | | Having the UK immunized a few months ahead of the EU, | irrespective of the underlying realities, is going to be | something that will be remembered and analyzed for a decade. | | Frankly, in the end, I actually think it's far too risky for | any EU/UK politicos to be playing underhanded games, the | blowout would be devastating. I just think it's a matter of | operational reality that the UK is doing well on this (note | they are doing very poorly on infections), though I do feel | EU has dropped the ball on securing vaccines from a wider | base. Even Canada has put in options to purchase from a | variety of sources. | michaelt wrote: | _> The UK will soon have a surplus of vaccines (and in fact has | extra stock already by some accounts - people are being given | unused doses)._ | | Eh, that's just a sign that you have to administer an entire | box of vaccines after opening the box. | | After all, some no-shows are inevitable and it's not like they | can turn away the people at the end of the queue to avoid | starting a new box given the people in the queue are there by | invitation. | cblconfederate wrote: | I'm for the EU and of course hope the vaccine problems are solved | ASAP, but i'm troubled by the way this has become a political, | lawyeristic issue. On the one hand UK media is deseperate to | somehow prove brexit worked, on the other hand EU is , once | again, trying to solve problems magically by legal means. Are we | forgetting we are in an urgent pandemic that threatens the world | economy with collapse? This requires a warlike level of | mobilization of engineers, not lawyers. | martinald wrote: | You sound like the "UK media" is one thing. The Guardian, FT, | etc are staunchly pro EU and have been endlessly pointing out | the problems. | hef19898 wrote: | It isnot, at least not yet, a legal issue. As you said, it is | an engineering (manufacturing) and supply / logistics | (distribution) issue. None of which are even remotely | discussed, not politially, not in the media, no where. So I | suspect we won't see any changes on these two fronts. At least | no coordinated ones, the manufacturers will have quite | motivated engineers working on manufactring ramp ups, I asume. | codeulike wrote: | _As you said, it is an engineering (manufacturing) and supply | / logistics (distribution) issue. None of which are even | remotely discussed, not politially, not in the media, no | where._ | | The Guardian, a few days ago: | | "Analysis: technical problem at Belgium plant failed to | produce enough vaccine but EU demanding fulfilment of | contract" | | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/why-has- | astraz... | kazen44 wrote: | I agree with your sentiment. Also, why not let other | manufacturers produce vacciness aswell? Getting the vacinnes | produced rapidly and in enough numbers seem to be the number | one priority in this. | stefano wrote: | Sanofi will be producing the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine, but it | takes a lot of time to set up a new production line. Last | estimate I saw was saying July. | thinkindie wrote: | apparently this is going to happen with Sanofi producing | Pfizer vaccine after they closed their own trials without a | successful candidate. | mrtksn wrote: | 5.4. | | _manufacturing sites_. AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable | Efforts to manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located | within EU(which, for the purpose of this Section 5.4 only shall | include the United Kingodm) and may manufacture the Vaccine in | non-EU facilities if appropriate, to accelerate supply of the | Vaccine in Europe; provided, that AstraZeneca shall provide prior | written notice of such non-EU manufacturing facilities to the | Commission which shall include an explanation for such | determination to use non-EU manufacturing facilities. 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, 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. The | manufacturing site planning is set out in Schedule A. | | Probably needs a lawyer specialised in this stuff and the | jurisdiction where the contract is signed, but it seems like this | is the part that EU says the contract included the UK facilities. | | Anyway, whatever happens people of Europe wont forget this, even | if it was purely EU's fault. You don't say you belong to a team, | omit the vaccines of China and Russia and then be let to die off | because the rest of the team says you should have signed better | contract. Next time something important comes up, EU should think | beyond the UK/USA. | dstick wrote: | It's mind boggling to me that "best reasonable effort" made it | in there multiple times. That's so vague and up to | interpretation, who can blame them that they sold the supplies | for 3x as much to another country? | | Anything can be construed as "best reasonable effort" - or is | this specific legalese I'm unaware off? | airstrike wrote: | IANAL but I think it qualifies as legalese you're unaware of. | | Also, just by definition, whatever the lawyers agreed on is | likely appropriate in a legal context and a layman's | criticism of the language is almost invariably because | they're missing the knowledge. Imagine said lawyer reading | your code and challenging you on your API design. | | Anyway, if challenged in court, AZ would have to demonstrate | that they actually made genuine efforts before going down a | different path. | | The addition of the word "reasonable" is because they need an | out in case they feel they've spent a decent amount of | efforts. Whether that amount was actually decent or not is | for the judge to decide. | mrtksn wrote: | Isn't it obvious that the "best effort" is not fulfilled if | you you manage to produce 6 hamburgers to UK and one to EU | when you specifically said in the contract that your | facilities in the EU and UK are to be used? | DoingIsLearning wrote: | The official statement from AstraZeneca's CEO is that they | have a fully operational production in the UK and are still | resolving production issues in the EU sites. | | From his explanation the EU signed their contract with a 3 | month delay from the UK contract. Arguing that he is being | accused of EU production issues on sites that have not had | the 3 month lead time that the UK sites had to resolve any | production issues. | | You can argue that the UK production output could | potentially be distributed proportionally for worldwide | demand but to me the real question is why isn't anyone in | the media or in the European Commission asking questions on | why did it take 3 months to draft such a bland generic | urgent supply contract? | | I am sure the truth is probably somewhere in between but to | me it seems the EC is playing the media game and trying to | through AstraZeneca under a bus to cover for their own | ineptitude in such a clutch time. | mrtksn wrote: | It's specifically stated in the contract that the UK | facilities are covered. It's literally written in plain | English, like you can read it from the document(the black | markings on the white background). The continental | facilities not getting online is irrelevant. | DoingIsLearning wrote: | We can agree that indeed this should be demanded. | | However, I ask again, why is no media outlet questioning | our representatives about why they burned 3 months of | people dying, to then come up with essentially the same | terms as the unilateral contracts that the Dutch and the | French were initially drafting? | | This isn't a contract to squeeze the best deal out of | AZN, it is an emergency purchase, what was there to | negotiate? | mrtksn wrote: | AFAIK this is not correct, they negotiated on stuff like | liability. Not price. | DoingIsLearning wrote: | For 3 whole months though? This isn't a 20 year down the | line trade agreement it's a medical emergency. | mrtksn wrote: | I don't think that it has anything to do with deliveries. | They were not shipping vaccines when EU was negotiating | the liability stuff. Instead, they put it on the contract | that both UK and EU facilities are to be used and no | other contracts to prevent EU's deliveries. | PJDK wrote: | Would "best reasonable efforts" generally include | breaking of stronger worded contacts signed earlier? The | UK contract was more along the lines of "you can partner | with Oxford to get their IP and we'll help set up | production lines on the condition we get first refusal of | vaccines from those lines" | kitd wrote: | _why isn 't anyone in the media or in the European | Commission asking questions on why did it take 3 months | to draft such a bland generic urgent supply contract?_ | | It's worse than that. The contract they finally signed | was an almost carbon copy of one prepared by Germany, | Netherlands and Italy 3 months earlier, before the EU | stepped in to take over and "expedite" matters. | mrtksn wrote: | Source? | kitd wrote: | https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-26/covid-vaccine-what- | is-th... | mrtksn wrote: | That source needs sources. | hef19898 wrote: | And it is a bad contract at that. | notahacker wrote: | 'Best reasonable effort' is defined for both parties | elsewhere in the contract, but it's still very open to | interpretation | hef19898 wrote: | I only have ever seen "best reasonable effort" in the | ontext of recovering from sitations where contractual | obligations aren't met. my understanding, and how it was | applied, is that these situation are impossible to predict, | thus the rather ominous wording. | jorvi wrote: | Even if AstraZeneca gets away with it legally, they will be a | leper to the EU and be crushed in whatever other medicine | negotiations they end up having with the EU or its | constituent national governments. Burning the goodwill that | gets you access to a relatively rich 450 million consumers | market is pretty boneheaded. | danieldk wrote: | I am not sure why this is downvoted. The EU is a very large | market and if the EU feels like it is badly treated, they | have a lot of options to make AstraZeneca's life miserable. | Anything from stronger regulation of medicine pricing to | relinquishing patents. In fact, the president of the EU, | Charles Michel has already hinted at invoking Article 122 | of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, | which could force vaccine-makers to share their patents | [1]. | | I think first it remains to be seen if AstraZeneca did | something problematic. But if that is the case, one can be | sure there will be political repercussions. Though I think | that they are now just using the threat of repercussions to | force AstraZeneca to change their policies. If they do so, | this will be the first big test for the new relation | between the EU and Brittain and AstraZeneca will be in the | middle of it. | | [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/charles-michel-says-eu- | could... | kazen44 wrote: | > In fact, the president of the EU, Charles Michel has | already hinted at invoking Article 122 of the Treaty on | the Functioning of the European Union, which could force | vaccine-makers to share their patents | | In my opinion they should, This is no time to play silly | games regarding contract law. Vaccines should be produced | as quickly as possible by as many capable facilities as | possible. | | Let's also not forget that most of the developing world | is dead last in receiving vaccines, and greatly | increasing production could prevent the death of | countless lives. | pkaye wrote: | But EU had months of negotiations to save a buck on a | vaccine which if delayed causes far more economic damage on | a daily basis. | kitd wrote: | Actually, it's specifically defined in one of the appendices. | tomas wrote: | There is a definition in the document: | | 1.9. "Best Reasonable Efforts" means | | (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, 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, restrictions on personal | freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking | into account efficacy and safety; and | | (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating | Member States, the activities and degree of effort that | governments would undertake or use in supporting their | contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to | the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which | is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on | personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world. | legulere wrote: | How is one country paying 3x as much when AstraZeneca still | has an obligation to produce more or less at cost? (https://w | ww.ft.com/content/e359159b-105c-407e-b1be-0c7a1ddb6...) | addicted wrote: | The fundamental problem is that AstraZeneca has conflicting | contracts with the UK and the EU. | | AstraZeneca, which apparently has no experience with maki | vaccines, has messed up every part of their job. Starting | with the trials (which is why the EU delayed the emergency | authorization and the US hasn't given it yet) continuing with | manufacturing, and apparently now it's becoming evident their | legal department has screwed up as well. | phonebucket wrote: | I'm not a lawyer. | | But if reallocating UK doses to the EU, would Astra Zeneca then | be in a predicament of not fulfilling their contract to the UK? I | have no idea, but presumably this would depend on knowing the UK | contract. | | So from my perspective, it's tough to know what Astra Zeneca | ought to be doing without knowing all of their contractual | obligations. That sounds tough. | | So I'm glad that I'm not a lawyer. | ChrisKnott wrote: | Yes, the UK contract has an explicit clause that says doses | manufactured from the UK plants can only be exported once the | UK order is fulfilled. The UK government demanded this as a | condition of partnering with Oxford, and vetoed Oxford | partnering with Merck because they wanted a UK HQed company. | | Whether AZ is breaching the contract with the EU seems to be | debatable, but the EU are certainly expecting AZ to explicitly | break their contract with the UK. | temp667 wrote: | So weird - and a good lesson for business. Generally the customer | that gives you the most hassle on front end and is the cheapest | will demand the most and hassle you the most for the entire | period. | | This argument reminds me of someone who I once tried to work | with, I said, I'll just charge you my costs instead of full rate | (this is like a 3x difference in price). So many arguments around | cost, so many demands on quick delivery. Meanwhile, the folks | paying 3x kept on reasonably agreed program and took 1/10th the | time. | | Anyone else have this experience? | | Rumor had it astra wasn't going to mark up a huge amount. | itronitron wrote: | A friend of mine who used to own a small Inn learned within a | year to turn away customers who either asked too many questions | before booking a room or that showed up complaining. | temp667 wrote: | Yeah - there are folks I think interested in having things | done. They pay, you do it, they are happy. | | And then there are folks who have their own problems - they | may be disorganized? Have internal conflicts? Have other | financial issues. So they come in saying - hey give us a | break on cost. you do. And then you are in for it, because | they can't agree internally, complain about everything. | | This EU situation reminds me of that. Instead of saying how | can we help increase production its endless blaming etc. | Isn't the company an EU company? Why wouldn't they make wht | they can? | eznzt wrote: | What is the excuse to have this contract censored? I understand | what it's in the interest of security for example, but this...? | | Also, where are the people who laughed about Brexit now? | Ninn wrote: | Person who laughed and still laughs at Brexit here. The | contract terms of the british contract has not been uncensored | as far as I know? | eznzt wrote: | AZ is holding the vaccines for the UK and the EU is moaning | about it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55822602 | skrause wrote: | In 13.1. (e) of the contract AstraZeneca warrants that: | | > _it is not under any obligation, contractual or | otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the | Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is | inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this | Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of | its obligations under this Agreement;_ | jiofih wrote: | So you are celebrating the ability of one country to screw | over others, ignoring contractual obligations and human | decency? Good riddance, stay out of the EU for as long as | you like... | Ninn wrote: | In addition to be in quiet explicit breach of contract and | extremely unethical, attitude given the world situation, | you still do realise that if EU had done the same and | restricted exports of the BioNTech vaccine GB had been even | more in the shitter. | | GB is by far one of the worst performers in the region in | handling covid: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/l7 | meq9/covid_deaths... | | Now try to imagine a world where the development of the | Oxford vaccine had failed. And EU based companies had had | the success in their place, would you still be having a | laugh, given that GB would be on the end of the unfulfilled | contract? | DangerousPie wrote: | Commercially sensitive information? Doesn't seem too unusual to | me. | | And I'm not sure what this has to do with Brexit. | DC-3 wrote: | I think they're alluding more generally to the idea that the | EU's bureaucratic sluggishness caused its member states to | not have a contract in place with AZ until three months after | Britain, putting them proverbially to the 'back of the | queue'. | alibarber wrote: | I think this is also where the size and 'buying power' of | the EU actually works against it. The UK has bought | something like 5 courses of vaccine for each of its | population across numerous suppliers, expecting that a few | of them will be damp squibs or arrive/be approved too late | or not at all. I don't really know - but I don't think the | EU is actually in a position to do the same given the size | of the combined poplulation and the limited political | appeal of wealthier countries to subsidise others for | vaccines that won't be needed. | jiofih wrote: | The EU financed the development of this vaccine to the tune of | 300M. The UK contributed 65M, the US 1.2B. | alibarber wrote: | Which per person works out as the least. Not that I'm saying | this situation is justified by that, but I don't find it | surprising that AZ are not prioritising the EU based purely | on this. | jiofih wrote: | That's for development - the population doesn't really | matter for the creation of the vaccine? | maxerickson wrote: | There's a confidentiality clause in the contract (page 26 of | the link). | | Perhaps AstraZeneca asked for it and the member states didn't | think it was worth fighting over? | frombody wrote: | EU is massive and has a lot of negotiating power. | | Allowing everyone else to see the contract would give other | countries stronger leveraging positions against AstraZeneca. | addicted wrote: | I'm not sure what this has to do with Brexit. | | The exact same arrangement would have been possible and likely | before Brexit as well. | that_guy_iain wrote: | People who were pro-Brexit seem to think this one thing | proves they were right. They seem to think other EU members | will be angry with how the EU are treating the UK in this | matter and will also want to leave. This point seems nuts | since the EU is basically fighting for it's members vs a non- | member, kind of shows why it's better to be with them than | againist them. Considering this hasn't fully played out, | their constant bragging on the matter seems foolish. | Especially considering the EU clearly has more power. The UK | is in an extremely vulnerable position overall and seem to be | making their position unsafer by the day. The damage the UK | goverment is doing to the EU relations will, I suspect, haunt | the UK for decades. I suspect if this carries on for a year | or so, the UK will end up in a trade war with their closet | and largest trading partner during one of the largest | recessions ever. | | I highly suspect this is going to cost AstraZeneca big. | outoftheabyss wrote: | Perhaps you can point to what in particular the UK has done | wrong on this vaccine issue. | | With the EU introducing export controls against existing | (and actually binding) vaccine contracts and now | threatening war time-esque controls over production and | intellectual property rights of private pharma companies, | it is not AstraZeneca that this will cost big, actions like | these are much much bigger than uk vs EU | that_guy_iain wrote: | > Perhaps you can point to what in particular the UK has | done wrong on this vaccine issue. | | This is the thing. The EU is complaining about | AstraZeneca and not the UK itself. AstraZeneca is being | accused of transferring supplies from EU factories to UK | ones and only providing those to the UK. | | > now threatening war time-esque controls over production | and intellectual property rights of private pharma | companies, it is not AstraZeneca that this will cost big, | | I think we think differently on this matter. You think | Pharma won't want to deal with the EU if their IP isn't | protected. It doesn't matter, another company will enter | using their IP and make that money anyways. Their IP | being protected is only in the interested of the company, | if their IP is not protected they will lose out to | generic companies. Doesn't matter where it's developed, | someone get it and figure it out and produce it where the | IPs are not protected. Drug companies have lots to lose. | travem wrote: | > They seem to think other EU members will be angry with | how the EU are treating the UK in this matter and will also | want to leave. | | UK pro-brexit reporting I have seen has been focusing not | on other countries (such as Germany) being upset at the | EU's treatment of the UK, but the fact that the EU | prevented them from negotiating individually and securing | vaccines earlier, and instead imposing additional | bureaucracy that delayed the ordering of the vaccine by | multiple months. | that_guy_iain wrote: | I was talking about the actual people not the reporting. | Yea, reporters are not that stupid. | jiofih wrote: | Especially considering that AZ is half swedish, and the | vaccine was mostly funded by other countries, the UK only | responded for 1/10 of it. | | Oxford uni and the production plant just happen to be on | the other side of the fence right now, there is very little | to claim it as a British triumph. They need something to | hold onto I guess. | lhnz wrote: | If this tweet is correct [1] then the EU hasn't even paid | the down payments yet so the contract isn't even | enforceable. | | [1] https://twitter.com/BarristersHorse/status/1355187738 | 3042539... | johannes1234321 wrote: | Correct at the time of writing that document UK was still | bound by the single market rules (transition period) but EU27 | decided to not fight over vaccines, but coordinate and go for | bigger central orders. | scythe wrote: | >Also, where are the people who laughed about Brexit now? | | Please don't throw grenades. | | https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/grenade.htm | cardinalfang wrote: | Too late, this affair has already been used as artillery by | the pro-brexit press. | Bombthecat wrote: | Well, it doesnt help that astrazeneca joined the pro | brexiters.. | netsharc wrote: | Just because someone did something stupid, doesn't mean the | previous actions of their opponent were clever... | afavour wrote: | > Also, where are the people who laughed about Brexit now? | | The idea that this one event makes up for the colossal mess of | Brexit is... interesting. | omginternets wrote: | Am I unreasonable in thinking it scandalous that the EU's | contract with AstraZeneca is censored? Shouldn't this kind of | thing be public? | jackweirdy wrote: | If it makes you feel any better, their attempt at redaction was | poor and the whole text is present in the bookmarks of the PDF: | | https://twitter.com/lijukic/status/1355164987212390402 | hef19898 wrote: | I just started to read it, not finished yet, so I will update | this post a needed. Also, I look at it from a purely supply chain | / logistics erspective. I also asusme that the other contracts | (Biontech/Pfizer, Moderna, Jihnsson&Johnsson,...) are similar. | | So far, I found this: | | - Paragraph 5.2: The delivery schedule in the main contract is | quite short ( I assume based on quarters) and blacked out. I | don't like that lack of transparence. | | - Paragraph 6.2: I read that paragraph concerning capacit | limitations, that of any additional EU orders result in capacity | shortfalls, AZ has to increase capacity. And in case AZ is not | able to adhere to the schedule agreed in 5.2, AZ is not in breach | of contract. If the Pfizer contract is the same, that would mean | the EU really shot itself in the foot with the additional orders, | that forced a temporary / partial shitdown of Pfizers Belgian | plant. | | - 6.3: Regular reporting intevalls are not specified, neither is | any appendix referenced. That could be an issue. | | - 8.1, Delivery: Coordination of deliveries is supposed to happen | between the central AZ rep and the reps o the EU member states. | Again no details, no mention of working groups, no detailed time | tables, eg AZ has to inform "in good time" before doses will be | available. I'd say very hard o implement once deliveries are | supposed to start, and a clear indication that nobody thought of | how the whole purchasing and delivery to member state hubs is | supposed to work in real life. | | - 8.4 and 8.5: Now the contract specifies "in good time" to be 5 | working days. Distribution is up to member states. And in case | the hub cannot take the delivery within these 5 days, any storage | is on the member state. The period behind this is blacked out. | The focus here is purely cost, again I'd say the cintract is | falling short on the logistcs side of things. | | - 18.7, Force Majeur: Sure, pandemics are usually included as | Force Majeur incidents. But really, for a COVID-19 vaccine as | well? Come on. The means either the pandemic is delcared over | (which it won't be), or AZ has a constant option to just declare | Force Majeur if they run into issues. Why not explicitly exclude | the ongoing pandemic from being a Force Majeur event? | | - Order Form (pages 35 through 38): This is honestly the first | contract I saw in my whole life, that spends fou complete pages | on cntractually specifying the purchase order. Honestly, I don't | see reason why. | | - Delivery Schedule (page 40): Now we have a table with monthly | quantities. All blacked out. Again, the contract references | payment terms, but not a single word on what happens if AZ canno | adhere to the schedule. Not good. | | I have to say, from a supply chain perspective, this contract is | dangerously lacking. Based on my experience with government | sourcing, they tend to include everything in the cntract they | think about, I assume nobody spared a thought at how the | deliveries wil bemanaged,how the schedule will look like, or what | will happen if there are delays. That almost borders negligence. | | Again, asuming the contracts with the other suppliers are | similar, I'm almost sure that there is no organization put in | place on EU level, at the suppliers or member states to manage | the actual deliveries. None. There is no word in that contract | about thecoordination between local vaccination efforts and | deliveries. I have the impression, that as with masks, the | governments think that you sign a contract, place an order and | then have the goods are delivered without issues. It didn't work | out like that with masks, it won't with vaccines. | Closi wrote: | I'm in logistics too, although deliveries seemed pretty | flexible from my perspective. 5 days is a huge window | (retailers will fine you if you arrive outside their 2 hour | window!). | | Delivery into any specified single NDC seems sensible. | | More specifics around delivery requirements and regulations | will differ on a by-country basis regardless. | yread wrote: | Is there anything that goes right with this vaccine? First they | mess up the trial giving it to only 18-55 year old, then the | manufacturing of half doses instead of full, then the efficacy is | not so great, then they manage to manufacture only 1/3 of the | doses they promised, then it turns out efficacy in old people is | basically nothing and now this. As Derek Lowe said: if there is | one pharma company that comes out of pandemic looking worse it | will be AZ. | johnghanks wrote: | > then it turns out efficacy in old people is basically nothing | | didn't this turn out to be false | snet0 wrote: | > giving it to only 18-55 year old | | This is simply untrue, the mixed-dose regimen was limited to | those under 55, but 4% of the study population were over 70. | | > the efficacy is not so great | | While the efficacy numbers indeed look lower than the mRNA | vaccines, I'm lead to believe that at least part of this is due | to methodology. As far as I am aware, neither the Moderna or | the Pfizer mRNA vaccines tested for asymptomatic cases, and | presented their efficacy _against symptomatic cases only_. | | > it turns out efficacy in old people is basically nothing | | I believe this claim is totally untrue, also. | yread wrote: | Don't get me wrong I would still take if I got the chance | (and I will according to the plan as I work in a hospital) | but it was a sloppily done trial. | | > This is simply untrue, the mixed-dose regimen was limited | to those under 55, but 4% of the study population were over | 70. | | It was given only to 18-55 in the UK. 4% doesn't compare well | to 20+% for all the other trials. Brilliant for a disease | which kills people with median age of 82 years (in the UK). | Why would you even design a protocol that looks only at young | people?! | | They used a different protocol in Brazil and South Africa. | Why did they use a different protocol in different places? | Pfizer and other companies managed with one. Having different | protocol is treated as different trials - so the trial in | South Africa didn't have enough cases and wasn't even | considered in the EMA authorization. EMA estimates 60% | efficacy. | | https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends- | covid-19-va... | | > methodology | | Ok so the efficacy looks worse but is not directly | comparable. That doesn't really detract from my point that | the trial(s) was not well designed, no? It just wasn't given | to enough old people. | | EDIT: Also, the efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection | was only 27% (again with insanely wide confidence interval). | So, they designed the trial to measure it, but it doesn't do | really well at that. | | > I believe this claim is totally untrue, also. | | It could be true, could be untrue but it's not falsifiable | from the data. The confidence interval for efficacy in 65+ is | -140.5% (yes there is a minus) - 94.2%. We just don't know. | | https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/status/1354781400071860230 | ucha wrote: | In 7.1., when they say the EU will provide funding at an amount | equal to the "cost of goods", does it mean that AZ doesn't make | profits on the vaccine they sell to the EU? | | There is also a mention of a cost of good estimate and how if the | cost of good was off by more than 20%, the EU should pay the | difference... | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _does it mean that AZ doesn 't make profits on the vaccine | they sell to the EU?_ | | During the pandemic period, which is defined to expire on 1 | July 2021. A stupid contractual provision to include, since it | creates monetary incentives to delay delivery. | | (Not saying that's why this is happening. But if I were | negotiating something like this, I'd include a bonus for early | deliveries. It keeps interests aligned, and gives the supplier | ammunition with which to add redundancies.) | DangerousPie wrote: | Pretty sure that's a standard part of any agreement AZ made, | since Oxford University only licensed the vaccine to them if | they provided it at cost. | kitd wrote: | I believe the "no profit" clause comes from Oxford Uni who | own the IP. | trebligdivad wrote: | Right, AZ is doing all of this at cost for everyone, not just | the EU (until the end of the Pandemic); I feel sorry for AZ | having to take this hastle when they're not making anything out | of it. | thow-01187 wrote: | Don't they get their manufacturing facilities upgraded for | free? | cinntaile wrote: | Apparently it was mistakenly uploaded uncensored before this was | changed? Where can we find the uncensored version? | DangerousPie wrote: | This is the "uncensored" version. Parts in red were originally | censored but have been revealed. | DangerousPie wrote: | Nothing particularly interesting or shocking about the parts that | got un-censored. The important part seems to be 5.4, which was | already readable before. | | To me that section seems so suggest that production facilities in | the UK should/could indeed be used to supply the EU, which is | what the EU seems to want and AZ/UK are denying. But I'm sure | there are a lot of highly paid lawyers looking at this from all | sides right now. | cs02rm0 wrote: | Certainly one Belgian lawyer has already stated that he thinks | the EU Commission don't have a leg to stand on here. Not that I | expect that to slow them down. | | https://twitter.com/JeremyC64/status/1355156181753475073?s=1... | | Awkwardly it seems Pfizer might shift to supplying the UK from | the US and the UK seem content that they have no contractual | need to share the AZ doses from the UK facility. So the EU | don't seem to have any leverage on this issue. | | Some have tried to say this debate is EU vs AZ but this map | suggests otherwise. | | https://thumbsnap.com/sc/JtrAXvhv.jpg | DangerousPie wrote: | Can we have a zoomed out version of that map please? I | suspect it's been framed for maximum controversy. | | And I'd also like to hear from more reliable lawyers than "a | guy on Twitter". | smnrchrds wrote: | Yeah. Canada is not exempted either. And we have no | domestic production of COVID-19 vaccine. All our vaccines | are coming from Europe. | mytailorisrich wrote: | From what I gather from the media here in the UK one problem is | that AstraZeneca's contract with the UK government is that they | will not export vaccines produced in the UK until the British | government's order is fulfilled. | | Pretty smart stipulation by the UK government but it may be | putting AstraZeneca, which agreed to it, in an awkward | position... | Bombthecat wrote: | So basically, two exclusive contracts? Lol.. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _two exclusive contracts?_ | | The EU signed second and, to my knowledge, did not include | similar language in their agreement. They are also paying | less than the UK and US. | makomk wrote: | Including similar language in their agreement would | probably have made the EU's already terrible case even | worse anyway, since it would almost certainly have only | covered AstraZeneca's non-UK European facilities, and the | whole problem seems to be that those can't produce nearly | enough vaccine to cover EU demand. Note that the current | clause about the initial supply of doses only covers | manufacturing them _within the EU_ ; the part about the | EU including the UK explicitly does not apply to that | clause. (Indeed, the only mention of UK manufacturing | seems to be exempting it from a clause _banning_ the use | of non-EU manufacturing sites.) | DangerousPie wrote: | According to AZ they are selling the vaccine at cost to | all customers, so the price should have nothing to do | with it. Unless they're lying I guess. | hef19898 wrote: | I think profits will come from page 5, paragraph a (the | second a on that page): | | "(a) costs related to the operation of the facility | incurred while using the facility to manufacture other | products;" | | are included in the vaccine costs. | rsynnott wrote: | AstraZeneca's real problem seems to be that they, on the face | of it, promised contradictory things to different customers. | krona wrote: | Except the wording in the EU contract is too vague and | loose, and isn't a commitment beyond best reasonable | efforts. | | Obviously the Commission (publically) disagrees and is | using AstraZeneca as a scapegoat for its incompetence. | DangerousPie wrote: | Ah, that's an interesting aspect I didn't know about. | | But if that's true it seems very hypocritical of the UK to | complain so much about the EU's plan to introduce vaccine | export controls, since they are doing the exact same thing | already... | [deleted] | notimetorelax wrote: | Wouldn't be the first time a politician behaved | hypocritically, would it? | freeone3000 wrote: | It's not hypocritical at all. Keeping vaccine in the | borders of the UK gives more vaccine to the UK, and | importing vaccine from Europe gives more to the UK. | usrusr wrote: | It seems like the gloves have come off wrt the idea of | fair(ish) vaccine access across the board recently. | | I'm usually not much of an aficionado of free market | radicalism, but I suspect that the vaccine ramp-up would go | better, eventually better for everyone, if it had started | with a honest commitment to the highest bidder mindset that | we can't goodwill out of existence anyways. Only suspect, | because who knows what failure modes the other path would | hold, but I think that for example early arrangements for | mandatory sublicensing (in case of research success) would | have been much more likely to have found their way into | research subsidy contracts if nation state representatives | had been in a gloves-off situation from the beginning. | alastor2020 wrote: | It's different though surely? UK had an exclusivity | agreement with a private company (AZ). EU had their own | agreement. There is now a contractual dispute between EU | and AZ. In retaliation, EU wants to use export controls to | prevent another EU company (Pfizer) honouring its legal | civil contract with the UK. This is trade war sort of | stuff. EU should go to court with AZ to settle the dispute. | The UK isn't a party here. | makomk wrote: | An exclusivity agreement for, as I understand it, a | production line that the UK basically paid to set up in | exchange for that exclusivity. Which seems like a pretty | normal commercial arrangement. | Scarblac wrote: | No, the EU wants to stop exporting to the UK from | Belgium, as they have already done,as long as they are | behind on the agreed EU schedule. | cs02rm0 wrote: | There's a quite a difference between a contract signed by a | company who could walk away without the money and imposed | law that restricts trade! | mytailorisrich wrote: | Of course. As I said in my other comment, there is a lot of | politics involved, not least because of Brexit and, frankly | because the EU did not do very well (they may be looking | for a diversion...) here while the UK did. | thow-01187 wrote: | To be fair, despite the heavy criticisms, it's not clear | whether the EU objectively made any major mistake. The | countries ahead of them in the vaccination effort did so | by writing a blank check to the pharma companies - | definitely not an ideal outcome either. | | EU diversified their vaccine contracts, negotiated fair | prices, generously funded the manufacturing rollout, | avoided vaccine nationalism between member states, | equitably distributed the vaccines amongst their members | and the key point - holds the manufacturers liable for | possible damages. | | All of those points are entirely reasonable. One could | argue that EU should have paid more, but there are two | counterarguments: Firstly, it doesn't really move a | needle, as both US and UK have home-front-first clauses, | leaving only Israel and Arab oil producers skipping the | queue. Secondly, said countries could just amend their | contracts, bid up the price, and everyone is back at | square one. | | Date of contract signing doesn't really matter either - a | credible commitment to massive orders has been there from | the very beginning. | | European Medical Agency gets a lot of undeserved flak for | being slow and bureaucratic. Pfizer was approved mere 10 | days later than in the US, Moderna got approved earlier | than in the UK, and now AstraZeneca earlier than in the | US. Allegedly, even those slippages were caused by the | companies simply prioritizing their US/UK approvals. | | Partially, EU got unlucky - Sanofi vaccine flopped, AZ | plant has technical problems, Curevac got delayed. In a | world where Pfizer and AZ wouldn't underdeliver by an | order of magnitude, EU plan would be praised and touted | as a gold standard. Partially, EU was always fighting an | uphill battle - the corporations that cleared the | approvals simply care more about their image in the | US/UK, don't like to face competent regulators, and | really dislike being liable. Afaik, they face no | liability in US and Israel. | | That being said, absent the EU policy, I'm quite | confident that small countries like Latvia, Slovenia or | Finland would end up with the short end of the stick. | libertine wrote: | How would EU be painted if they demanded all vacines | produced in Europe to stay in Europe before all their | orders are fulfilled? | | That would be "doing very well"? | | Because it seems that's what UK is doing with AZ, their | production stays in the UK. And that's doing well? | | If so, then EU should most definitely lock out exports of | vaccines. | xioxox wrote: | The vaccine basically would not exist without the UK | government helping putting together the organisation to | make this, before AZ even got involved, plus the academic | research funding. This vaccine is sold at cost and is | allowed to be manufactured elsewhere such as in India. It | seems perfectly reasonable that the UK can fund a | facility to guarantee supply after all the investment and | effort. | riedel wrote: | The other part is the definition of Best Reasonable Effort . I | wonder if the behaviour of Pfizer has an impact here. | ldng wrote: | Yes it does. They used it to announce that they deliver 20% | bottle because they are not billing 6 doses per bottle while | at the same time arguing publicly that they contains 5. They | are then hiding behind that contract the talks about doses, | not bottles and best effort not hard delivery. They all have | the same contract and are following Pfizer example. | | BigPharma is screwing up UE big time and that is | unacceptable. | | Source for downvoters : | https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/290121/retards-de- | va... (FR) | hef19898 wrote: | Oh, there is also a paragraph in the AZ contract, that | frees AZ from breach of contract if additional orders from | the EU result in capacity shortfalls. Not that dditional | orders would have been necessary, but hey, the press called | for it. | noncoml wrote: | If you listen to UK BBC news, they spend half of their airtime | saying how the UK government placed the order months before the | EU, and that the EU is in the wrong, since they haven't even | approved the vaccine yet(as of the last time I listened to the | BBC news), so they shouldn't complain and so on. | | I am surprised by the polarization and demonization of the EU | they are promoting. Was not expecting that from BBC. And then | they wonder why British people voted for Brexit. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | It's the same if you read the Guardian. It's clear that the | apparent europhilia of some liberal media was nothing but a | political play. They pretended to support Europe only because | their rivals, the Tory-supporting media, were against it. | | Or pretended to be. None of those people believe anything at | all. | oliwarner wrote: | They spend half their time talking to their government, who say | that. | | The BBC can't win. When they editorialise to try to dig into a | subject, it's left wing pandering, and when they just listen to | official sources, they're right wing mouthpieces. | simonswords82 wrote: | True that - which is why it's so important to obtain news | from multiple sources and then attempt to form your own view. | salicideblock wrote: | I am surprised why anyone is discussing who signed first, given | that in the contract AstraZeneca warrants that: | | "it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to | any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe | Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material | respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede | the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this | Agreement;" | | This ended up not being true, which was not totally unexpected. | | AstraZeneca ends up in the bad position of choosing on which of | their contracts their will fail, and they evidently chose to | fail the EU's _in its near totality_ for the next few months. | | It pains me to see the cynicism in shielding behind "best | effort" clauses (standard in any procurement under R&D) or in | "who came first". It's a serious matter that warrants a cooler | and more balanced solution that this. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _in respect of the Initial Europe Doses_ | | There is text blacked out in the definition of Initial Europe | Doses after "within the EU" that I'm curious about. | | Also, the clause reads "AstraZeneca has committed to use Best | Reasonable Efforts...to build capacity to manufacture 300 | million Doses of the Vaccine...for distribution within the | EU..." That's ambiguous with respect to distribution. | | AstraZeneca _are_ using Best Reasonable Efforts to build this | manufacturing capacity. But they aren 't under Best | Reasonable Efforts obligations to _use_ this capacity for the | EU. (The definition of Best Reasonable Efforts overlooks | distribution entirely.) | | It's a shitty situation. Pain has to be allocated. But based | on contract, versus loose notions of fairness, AstraZeneca is | under no obligation to export British-made doses to the EU. | hef19898 wrote: | AZis only obliged to deliver to hubs in each member state. | That's it, nothing else. Hubs have to take the delivery | within 5 days of being notofied of that delivery. That's | about it regarding actual deliveries. Pretty thin, | especially compared to the 4 pages covering the order form. | throwawaymanbot wrote: | well ok. Let them return all the money the EU gave them. | And let them understand how AZ might have market access | problems to the EU from now on. | eyko wrote: | I'm also curious about what dates were agreed. Looking at | the document, here's what they state regarding | manufacturing and supply (emphasis mine): | | "5. Manufacturing and Supply. | | 5.1. Initial Europe Doses. AstraZeneca shall use its Best | Reasonable Efforts _to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses | within the EU_ for distribution, and to deliver to the | Distribution Hubs, following EU marketing authorisation, as | set forth more fully in Section 7.1. approximately | [censored] 2020 [censored] Q1 2021, and (iii) the remainder | of the Initial Europe Doses by the end of [censored] " | | It looks like the EU expected to have the vaccine approved | by the end of 2020 and delivered soon after that. Based on | media reporting, it would appear that AZ notified the EU | that it would not meet the first deadline, but did so with | only a short notice (15 days according to some outlets?). | | Without getting into speculation, one date that isn't | censored is that which specifies when the "Additional | Doses" would stop being offered at the agreed price: 1 July | 2021: | | "9.3.Additional Doses. AstraZeneca shall provide any agreed | Additional Doses at Cost of Goods until 1 July 2021, unless | AstraZeneca determines in good faith that the COVID-19 | Pandemic has not ceased as of 1 July 2021, in which case | AstraZeneca shall [censored]" | | So, if the initial doses are delayed, then the optional | doses are delayed after that, and then the additional doses | are delayed after that, it would seem that the agreed | prices would only apply for a small fraction of the | additional doses that would've been expected, whatever | seemed reasonable. It seems that any delays in the "Initial | Doses" could have an effect on the rest of the contract | agreement. | bitcharmer wrote: | I don't understand, where is BBC incorrect here? How would you | like them to report on this? | | EU _was_ months late and they move much slower than other | parties in the whole process and on top of that they signed | agreements with "best effort" clauses instead of hard | obligation of vaccine delivery. How is this UK's fault? | DangerousPie wrote: | Nobody is saying it's the UK's fault, but just because they | signed the agreement a few months later doesn't mean that AZ | isn't bound to that agreement. There is no "first come first | serve" clause in there. | adrianb wrote: | Interesting. How are these contracts supposed to work? In | general when I buy something and have to wait, I expect to | get it before everyone who buys after me. Not sure how | these contracts work. | krona wrote: | Which is _exactly_ why AZ split the UK /EU supply chain | to try avoid such issues entirely (CEOs words.) The | contract is vague and nonspecific about commiting UK | factories to supply the EU. | | The whole thing is a parody of Brussels bureaucratism. | mrtksn wrote: | >The contract is vague and nonspecific about the UK | factories supplying the EU. | | It's not, it's clearly stated that the contract covers | the UK facilities. | | Check article 5.4 | krona wrote: | My interpretation comes from 2 seperate lawyers. Why are | they wrong? | mrtksn wrote: | I don't know your lawyers, can't tell. Are they internet | lawyers, like on reddit or YouTube or something? | krona wrote: | Unless you're an expert in contract law then your | interpretation of "Best Reasonable Efforts" for a pharma | company during a global pandemic is less than worthless. | As is my own. | [deleted] | DangerousPie wrote: | I guess ideally AZ wouldn't enter multiple contracts that | conflict with each other... | Diggsey wrote: | So you're suggesting AZ should never have agreed to | supply the EU at all? | | The contract clearly says they're to make their "best | reasonable effort" to satisfy this contract. Breaking | previous contracts would be unreasonable. | | There are so many things the EU could do here that could | help: - Provide more resource to AZ to get more | facilities up and running. - Offer to sell some of that | future ramped up production back to countries like the UK | in exchange for getting some vaccines now. - Expedite the | approval process of other vaccines. - Allow member states | to negotiate indepently. | | What did they choose to do? Raid the EU vaccine | production facilties, and threaten legal action against | the very company trying to supply them the vaccine. Like | yeah, that's really going to help people. | | The UK government directly paid for the research and | development of the AZ vaccine, and paid for the | manufacturing facilities in the UK to be built, when | there was a lot of pressure to simply partner with US | firms. Where was the EU when this was happening? Why | didn't the EU take it upon themselves to do the same | thing? | | The presumptiveness of the EU to dictate that AZ should | redirect UK vaccines to the EU is astounding. | libertine wrote: | I don't understand why: | | - approval timing; | | - contract celebration date; | | Has anything to do with the fact that AZ is failing to | comply with it's duties. | | AZ isn't waiting for EU approval to start producing stock | to fulfill their initial order, that makes no sense - it | takes WEEKS to build stock for the goal of the 80 million | doses. The stock that will be delivered, 30% of what was | expected, is being produced before this approval. So this | "approval process" argument makes no sense. | | Regarding the contract celebration date, same applies - | they were expected to deliver 80 million doses in a | timeframe, which they agreed upon. | | Why don't we do this the other way around, why don't we | all be transparent and see if they are also failing to | supply the UK? Because if it's supply issues, then it | should be a problem of both countries no? | | Or they were shifting stock made in Europe to fulfill UK | orders? | | I really hope the EU gets to the bottom of this, because | it stinks. | Silhouette wrote: | _The contract clearly says they 're to make their "best | reasonable effort" to satisfy this contract. Breaking | previous contracts would be unreasonable._ | | To me reading the contract as a non-lawyer, the BRE | conditions felt like game, set and match to AZ. | | For one thing, the definition of "best reasonable | efforts" does seem to be ambiguous, but evidently it's | intended to relate to what a business comparable to AZ | would be expected to do. It seems unreasonable to expect | that a large, multinational business manufacturing | essential drugs during a public health crisis would | knowingly and deliberately breach an existing contract to | supply a fixed number of doses on a fixed schedule to | another party, which is what AZ reportedly has with the | UK. | | On top of that, there is the discrepancy between 5.1 and | 5.4. The latter says the UK counts as "within the EU" | while talking about manufacturing at sites located within | the EU, but it also explicitly says the inclusion of the | UK is only for that specific clause. Clause 5.1 is | specifically about the initial doses and requires AZ to | use its BREs to manufacture the initial doses within the | EU with no such including-the-UK qualifier. | | So it appears that, contractually, AZ is actively | required to make BRE to manufacture the initial doses for | the EU _not_ in the UK, and in any case, unless there is | something very strange hidden in the censored wording, | the obligations relating to delivery are also covered by | a BRE qualifier. | | Presumably this will all end up being decided in court, | probably long after it really matters for anything other | than financial compensation, but on a first reading by | this layperson, it does look like AZ have the stronger | case here. | Neil44 wrote: | The significance of the earlier commitment from the UK is | that UK manufacturing of the vaccine is now 3 months more | mature than the EU plant. It's not a legal significance but | a practical and moral one. | Scarblac wrote: | The EU claims there are no best effort clauses, which is why | they asked AZ to make this public. We'll find out. | | The rest of your comment makes OP's point: this is a contract | dispute. Why is it relevant when the UK signed their | contract, or that the EU hadn't approved the virus yet? Such | comments only serve to make UK citizens angry at the EU. | the-dude wrote: | > the EU hadn't approved the virus | | We are working on that! | mrtksn wrote: | UK had two variants until EU approves one! | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _EU claims there are no best effort clauses, which is why | they asked AZ to make this public. We 'll find out_ | | Best Reasonable Efforts are defined on page 3 of this post. | | "The activities and degree of effort that a company of a | similar size and with similarly-sized infrastructure and | similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in | the development and manufacture of a Vaccine..." | | Couple problems: | | - "Development and manufacture" doesn't include | distribution. | | - AstraZeneca has practically zero track record in | vaccines. "Similar resources" is a potential out. | [deleted] | noncoml wrote: | I don't think I implied that UK is in fault, or that EU is in | the right here. | | The problem, in my opinion, is with the way the report it, | the time they spend on it and the demonization of the EU. | | Even if EU is 100% in the wrong, do they need to spend half | their air-time covering a dispute between AstraZeneca and the | EU, arguing how the EU is unreasonable and pretty much the | monster that tries to steal the vaccines from the UK people? | | My disappointment is the with the division, polarization and | demonization of the EU they are promoting. | | After listening to that rhetoric with my (British) wife for | 10 minutes straight, I heard heard saying "yeah, fuck these | EU assholes". | mike-cardwell wrote: | That's how you get eyeballs. | adimitrov wrote: | The BBC is publicly funded. The entire idea behind | publicly funded news and broadcast is that they shouldn't | care about eyeballs, singe they don't need and money. | mike-cardwell wrote: | The BBC is staffed by humans. Humans who want their | programming to be popular and watched widely. If people | stopped watching BBC news, you better believe they'd make | changes to reverse that, whatever it takes. Their | incentives are just different. | barrkel wrote: | The best effort relates to _setting up_ the manufacturing of | the vaccine, not distributing it. See e.g. | https://davidallengreen.com/2021/01/what-can-be-worked- | out-a... | | There's no doubt the UK has been nimble and reasonably | effective on the vaccine front (as we all know, the EU is a | very mixed bag by construction); just as well since it has | been dreadful on the mortality front. The UK commentariat is | a little bit shocked, but it is to be expected - it's out of | the club. There will be more consequences later. | | I, for one, am leaving the UK with my family. | hef19898 wrote: | Distribution is critical. AZ is only responsible for the | deliveries to the national hubs. After that, it's up to the | memeber staes. The contract is extremely thin on | distribution, generally on supply chain and logistics. | These two parts being the most critical aspects, after | develpment and certification, makes this lack of details a | real problem. | alibarber wrote: | But surely the EU hasn't exactly covered itself in glory here? | | They, factually, objectively, _were_ later in signing an | agreement, and have taken longer to approve a vaccine in use | elsewhere in the world. Why should they not share some blame | from their citizens like any other politician should? The UK | government deserves scorn for their handling of the pandemic in | the UK. The EU should be criticised for this. It is not a | football match. We do not need to 'support' one 'side' against | the other. | alibarber wrote: | Instead of downvoting - please do tell me what is offensive, | or how you feel this does not add to the discussion. Or at | least do both. | GizmoSwan wrote: | There is/was issues with submitted vaccine data. Technically | it wouldn't have been approved in normal times till they | could get better proven data. | | Now it is all water under the bridge because countries are | desperate to have enough vaccines. | | 6 months from now, all countries are going to pretend to be | nice nice and when there will be oversupply and new variant | of the COVID, they will be dumping the old vaccines on other | countries. | gutnor wrote: | That was the same in the Touring Visa that for a while was "The | EU refused" and it became just the opposite a few weeks later. | | But that's the story of Brexit and its 40 years of media | support. Even the BBC has often been on the technically correct | side happily reporting welcome change as "UK change" and | blaming unwelcome on the EU, even if the UK voted for it. | calpaterson wrote: | Those are the simple facts and they are pretty operative: | | - The UK signed months before | | - The EU has been slow to vaccinate independent of that AZ | dispute | | - The EMA did only approve this vaccine (which the UK is | already using) a few hours ago | | This dispute has sadly been made into a hugely sensitive | national dispute as a distraction from the poor performance of | the EU's vaccination programme. Even if nothing had gone wrong | with the AZ vaccine production, the EU still would have much | poorer rollout than the UK. It's just a cover of jingoism. | agd wrote: | Not sure why you've been downvoted. It seems very clear that | the commission is whipping up a political storm here to | deflect from the fact it's done a bad job with vaccine | procurement, which will cost thousands of European lives. | calpaterson wrote: | It takes a certain bravery to post any opinion that is | critical of the EU on HN. Always a danger to your karma :) | hef19898 wrote: | I don't see procurement as the main issue. The EU ordered | around 2.3 billion doses, for 450 million inhabitants. | Quantity wise, that's more than enough. | | They did screw up distrbution so, royaly. And with | distribution being the responsbility of the member states, | well go figure. This contract has its defiencies, I really | hate it that there are n consequences when delivery | schedules aren't met. And how delivery schedules will be | defined. | agd wrote: | It wasn't the total quantity that was the problem. It was | the timing. It's no use having hundreds of millions of | doses if they aren't available until Q4. | hef19898 wrote: | nd everybody is having issues with supply, regardless of | when contracts were signed. AZ has issues, Moderna has | issues, Pfizer has issues. Instead of playing a blame | game, I would have argely preferred to see a coordinated | effort of getting the ordered doses earlier, and have | deliveries coordinated with vaccination campaines. We | have neither, and at least in germany I doubt we have | anything like a planned vaccination campaig. None of | which can be blamed on the suppliers or the EU. | | And none of the urrent discussion are helpfull in solving | any of these issues. | GizmoSwan wrote: | Every country is for itself when shit hits ceiling, that is my | conclusion. Territorial dogma took over with PPP and | respirators too. | | Now the Swiss and Brits are not part of EU and their own | interest supersedes their alliance with EU obviously. | jack_riminton wrote: | Nitpicking but the phrase is "shit hits the fan" i.e. it | would go everywhere | | Shit hitting the ceiling wouldn't be that dramatic in | comparison :) | GizmoSwan wrote: | LOL yup... | kcartlidge wrote: | I'm British. I do however believe we should vaccinate the most | at risk groups, then be more generous with the UK production | facilities for the EU's more at risk groups whilst slowing down | our efforts for our own less at risk ones (which includes me). | It's the humane thing to do. | | That said, my sympathy for the EU (as an opponent of Brexit) | has been diminished by their attempted bullying behaviour. | | They initially wanted the UK in on their EU procurement. Unlike | the EU members of the grouping we were to be excluded from any | say in the vaccines chosen, the quantities, the pricing, the | manufacturing, and the distribution. No say on anything; take | what you're given. They left us with no choice but to do our | own deals. | | We did those deals faster and with less guarantees at that | early stage, fronted virtually the whole cost of the | AstraZeneca UK production, accepted liability rather than | insisting (as per the EU) that the vaccine makers did, and paid | much more, just to get a faster agreement (and we still had the | same teething issues the EU are facing now; we weren't special | in that regard). Despite all that risk, up front cost, higher | prices, and accepted liability, the EU is now demanding that | the instant they approve the vaccine they can dip into the | supply that has cost the UK far more than most people realise | we gave up in order to get that swift delivery. | | The EU stumbled by not realising the urgency last year, then | stumbled again by badly insulting the UK with the EU | procurement "offer" terms which forced us to negotiate | separately. | | I have a great amount of sympathy for the EU people (I may not | be in the EU any more, but I'm still European) but none of this | is the doing of the UK - who are simply carrying on using the | vaccines delivered - and the first 'shot' at actual vaccine | nationalism has been fired not by the mad brexiteers but by the | EU with their Northern Ireland border statements and not- | export-control-really new 'monitoring' and 'agreement' | position. | | I really expected coming into this year to find myself part of | a massive UK villain state facing a more reasonable EU. I | didn't foresee a desparate EU attacking a UK just going about | it's own business. | paganel wrote: | > That said, my sympathy for the EU (as an opponent of | Brexit) has been diminished by their attempted bullying | behaviour. | | I'm a EU citizen and I'm with you on this one. Also, I now | realise (meaning after Brexit has been actually put in place) | that the officials in Bruxelles could have been more | forthcoming towards us, the remaining EU citizens, about how | UK's exit will effect us. All I was hearing were things like | "those dastardly British, they'll pay for it!" while now one | cannot receive a package from a relative or close friend in | the UK without being flooded with customs forms to fill, to | say nothing of the extra money one has to pay for the | privilege. | senko wrote: | As a EU citizen, I agree with your assessment completely. | | The EU bungled this and it would not be fair if we were to | bully our way out of it. | | It's sad to see this being a zero sum game, and no way you | cut it people are going to suffer (already are) somewhere. | | I was expecting a bit more decency on our side. Shattered | superiority complex after Brits mismanaged Brexit, maybe? | | Our lack of coordination and flailing in this regard is | equally impressive. | noncoml wrote: | On the other hand I am a EU citizen married to UK citizen, | living in the US, so my skin in the game is mainly emotional. | | I am not saying EU was/is always right, as they don't seem to | be right in this case, but I was just hoping that BBC would | be more subtle about it. I am totally fine with | UK/AstraZeneca pushing back hard. | | Just don't see the need for BBC to turn it to a "us vs them" | thing. I think I am still living in denial in regards to | Brexit. I guess I will have to get used to it. | pasabagi wrote: | It's hard to overstate how tight the british establishment is, | media included. It's a small country, and power is concentrated | in a vanishingly small number of hands, many of whom are | married, or went to school together, or are close friends. | | This is why when britain passed 100,000 coronavirus deaths, | with the worst death rate in the world, nobody resigned, and | nobody called for anybody to resign. | | The BBC is part of this kind of tight, teflon kernel that's at | the heart of why the UK is such a dysfunctional country these | days. | isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote: | Very relevant "Yes, Minister"; | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog | subsubzero wrote: | > It's a small country, and power is concentrated in a | vanishingly small number of hands | | This is very true, I chatted at length with my neighbor who | lived his entire life in the UK(up to a few years ago) and | was shocked how stratified the society is. Basically there is | small group of people(who went to Eton, are lords or | knighted, from famous families) that form a clique that runs | everything in the country. No matter how much money you make | or how successful you are, you can never join that circle. | | An example was told to me that even David Beckham (famous | soccer star) is looked down upon by that segment and does not | associate with them and could never join that part of | society. | mattmanser wrote: | Err, same in America man. Bushes? Father and son were the | president. Kennedys? Brothers were almost presidents, one | was a President, the other governor. Clintons? Spouses were | almost presidents! If that's not cliquey I don't know what | is. | | Your mate is also massively over-egging how bad it is, | there is still an Eton clique (the present/last government | being a good example), but we've had a range of recent | prime minister's educated normally, outside of the Eton | clique. Brown, Blair, even Thatcher just went to a Grammar | school (generally a better school you have to pass exams to | qualify for, which is semi-meritocratic, though gamed by | the rich) | | Our election system is even worse than America's though so | we keep getting conservative governments who win 40-45% of | the popular vote but somehow get landslide majorities. | | Also, what do you mean by "small", it's got 70 million | inhabitants. At worst a country with a population of a size | of France and Germany might be called "medium". | chrisseaton wrote: | > who win 40-45% of the popular vote but somehow get | landslide majorities | | In a system with four major parties, 43% _is_ an | absolutely huge popular landslide. How can you describe | it as anything else? Ten percentage points above their | nearest rival? How much more of a majority do you think | it could possibly be? | lou1306 wrote: | But at least the US has a pretty sognificant percentage | of people that reach the upper echelon of society from | basically nothing (Obama, RBG, Biden). And the dinasties | you mention are what, 50 years old? In the UK it seems | that the ruling circle has been at the wheel literally | for centuries. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | The people who really control things in the US aren't | politicians. That is way beneath the scions of multi- | generational wealth. Even T* isn't in their club. | Nasrudith wrote: | If anybody thinks they are really in control of things | they are highly arrogant and out of touch at best or an | outright delusional at worst. Especially when it comes to | the US. Where even the overly rigid minutae obsessed | military take pride in being considered unpredictable | madmen who don't even pay attention to their own | doctrines consistently and are at home in chaos. The | people of the US aren't even consistently individualistic | and would make herding cats look easy - you can get them | to follow you with a tin of tuna. | | There isn't "the" Man. Why would there be when even | positions of petty power are contested for so tightly and | dirtily and there are so many striving to rise? | Consequences are not a strong deterrent - if they were | the world would look very different. | | Wealthy individuals may have power but nobody has control | over the a process of contention across all layers with | nominal goals served imperfectly with cargo-culting and | skewed priorities. | | All of this and there is nothing inherently special about | the people - human nature and control oppose each other. | triceratops wrote: | > we keep getting conservative governments who win 40-45% | of the popular vote but somehow get landslide majorities. | | Can you explain more about this? Is the UK heavily | gerrymandered? | | EDIT: It's an honest question. I don't know anything | about UK politics, other than that it's a parliamentary | constitutional monarchy. | chrisseaton wrote: | > Is the UK heavily gerrymandered? | | No it isn't gerrymandered. And if it is very slightly | accidentally gerrymandered in some places, that works | _against_ the Conservatives - Labour MPs often have | smaller constituencies. | | So no that's not relevant or part of what is being talked | about here. | | The reality is that 43% popular vote for a single party | in a system with four major parties, 10 percentage points | more than their nearest rival, _is_ nothing but an | enormous popular vote landslide. The Conservatives are | popular amongst broad sections of society, incomes, | ethnicities, regions. All other parties serve limited | niches so are fundamentally constrained. | | Why don't they form a coalition? Well I'm not sure they | really have deeply shared values to do that. | subsubzero wrote: | I think the point I am getting at is there is a group of | people that largely descends from the British aristocracy | that is extremely cliquish and has a large majority of | its members in positions of power. | | My neighbors wife knew Eddie Redmayne and his brother(I | think both went to Eton) and although she said they were | nice, they were in a totally different world and only | really associated with people who also went to Eton/had | large trustfunds. In England you would never see people | like Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs etc who came from | middle class families move to the highest strata of | society and be accepted by those in that highest strata. | | I am by no means bashing England, I think the country is | awesome and have family that lives there, I am just not | keen on the stratified nature of its society. | hcho wrote: | And yet British have James Dyson, Richard Branson and so | on... | | Old money vs new miney strife is an age old thing and I | can assure you none of the tech barons is rubbing | shoulders with former barons let alone American gentry. | pasabagi wrote: | I said small country in the original post, because while | I imagine the US has similar levels of dynastic cliquey | stuff going on, it's a colossal nation, so it doesn't | hurt so much. | | In the UK, I think Eton is more a symptom than a cause. | The problem is, London is a world-class city that | concentrates the entire political and financial | establishment. It's also a city with very obvious | parallel worlds, where if you move in certain circles, | you meet the same people, so while it is a massive city, | it sometimes feels quite small. | | To me, the worst part is not that both Johnson and | Cameron went to the same school, the same university, or | even the same exclusive dining club - the bad bit is that | because any given person with political, social or | economic power in the UK is so closely connected with any | other, there's a real incentive not to rock the boat. You | get an enormous amount of cohesion, because if you go | around making enemies, you're ultimately making things | awkward for a lot of your friends and acquaintances. | | On top of that, the fact most people in this world have | similar backgrounds makes a lot of them 'on the same | page' by default. | krona wrote: | David Beckham is looked down upon by 50% of society | (conservative estimate.) The clique of which you speak | doesn't seem very exclusive at all. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | As a (Swiss) American, I can't see the flaw in that logic. The | UK signed first, is paying more and included a provision | preventing the export of British-manufactured doses. The EU | didn't. The EU also added a provision mandating AstraZeneca | make no profit prior to 1 July 2021 (the end of the Pandemic | Period), a counter-incentive to ramping up production. | | It's not fair. But neither is the UK and EU getting wildly more | doses per capita than Africa, South America or Oceania. | double-a wrote: | I don't understand why there's a comparison with the UK | vaccination program at play here. Your comment is precisely | the type of incendiary fallacy that OP is accusing the BBC | if. | | EU is claiming that AZ is breaching the contract it had with | them. Whether they are in the right or not, what does the | UK's relationship with AZ have to do with it? | hef19898 wrote: | INAL, but I'd say nothing. The contract includes the UK as | part of the EU as far as manufacturing is concerned | (paragraph 5.4). But kicking AZ already now with breach of | contract is a bit wild. As is pushing false numbers | regaridng efficiency of the vaccine for eople above 60 (or | 65), as happened in Germany. Not quite a good way to | motivate AZ to deliver, it rather makes it a legal question | from the getgo. Which is, well, not good. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _I don 't understand why there's a comparison with the UK | vaccination program at play here_ | | Because the EU wants AstraZeneca to export doses made in | Britain to the EU. | odiroot wrote: | In order to fulfil the provisions of the contract the | company willingly signed, and not out of spite for | Britain, as far as I'm aware. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _In order to fulfil the provisions of the contract the | company willingly signed, and not out of spite for | Britain_ | | Correct. Just pointing out why Britain is relevant. | double-a wrote: | And has AstraZeneca claimed that this would cause them to | fail on their commitments to the UK? Or are we presuming | that because it benefits some other agenda? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _has AstraZeneca claimed that this would cause them to | fail on their commitments to the UK?_ | | I believe the UK has made the claim that they have | exclusive contractual right to domestically-made vaccines | until a certain point. Not sure if AstraZeneca | corroborated. | eyko wrote: | > Not sure if AstraZeneca corroborated. | | Apparently so | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/head-of- | astraz... | kitd wrote: | Tbf, I believe the "no profit" clause comes from Oxford | university, the IP owner. | radiator wrote: | Why on Earth is it not fair that the UK and EU get more doses | _of their own vaccines_ per capita than Africa, South America | or Oceania? | | Why would they be obliged to export even one dose of | something they produced, before they have provided for every | single one of their citizens? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Why on Earth is it not fair that the UK and EU get more | doses of their own vaccines per capita than Africa, South | America or Oceania?_ | | My point is fairness is in the eye of the beholder. What | we're left with are contracts. And contractually, | AstraZeneca seems to be in the right. The EU negotiated, at | first glance (and to this non-expert), a poor agreement. | Isinlor wrote: | Under international trade agreements we (EU) can also | stop exports of the vaccines as did UK in the contracts. | | Whatever the means, as long as they are legal, we can and | should force equal burden of delays. | | I guess EU didn't play it the best way from political | perspective, since we are now labeled as bad. | | Still, I'm personally impressed that EU is actually able | to do something of consequence in somewhat short time | frame. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _(EU) can also stop exports of the vaccines as did UK | in the contracts_ | | It's different--one is an executive action, the other | contractual duty--but yes. Moreover, it doesn't solve the | problem. The EU wants doses made in the UK. The EU doses | have already been exported to the UK. | | This whole thing looks incompetent on the EU's part, from | the outside. First, the delays in signing. Second, the | sloppiness of the contract. And third, the incompetence | of the post-problem situation. The EU has something | Britain wants--a trade deal. Strike a deal with the UK to | get their vaccines. Instead, we have a song and dance, | empty threats and name calling. | Silhouette wrote: | _The EU has something Britain wants--a trade deal. Strike | a deal with the UK to get their vaccines. Instead, we | have a song and dance, empty threats and name calling._ | | It's hard to imagine any such deal being countenanced by | the UK government. It's clearly in the stronger position | here, and after its response to the virus situation has | had so many problems in most areas, the handling of the | vaccine has so far been a rare but very welcome | exception. It seems implausible the government would give | up such a huge PR win and instead do something that would | surely be represented as risking their citizens' lives or | worse, even in the already extremely unlikely event that | the EU offered a much better deal than the one just | concluded after years of negotiations. | | As long as government ministers can confidently confirm | that they believe the UK/AZ agreement is solid and enough | doses will be available to meet the schedule the | government has stated, they can try to maintain a | dignified silence on the EU/AZ situation and let it be | seen as a dispute over a contract to which the UK is not | a party. They have little to gain by getting involved and | much to lose. | adimitrov wrote: | Because we're humans and not profit-seeking self serving | automatons. Or at least I aspire to not be one | | If there is suffering, and if we can, we ease the | suffering. The US and EU have bought way more vaccine doses | than they need. | | It even makes sense from a utilitarian perspective, as we | live in a global market economy. | | Since when did people become so nationalistic again? We're | humans, first and foremost. | kcartlidge wrote: | Agree entirely. | | However this is not about how many vaccines have been | _bought_ , but how many are being _delivered_ via current | production. The US, EU, UK, etc have indeed bought more | than they needed, but they won 't (by definition) be | using more than they needed - the extra purchases were | due to spreading the production and vaccine approval risk | to ensure that _enough_ were available. | | You could reasonably argue they shouldn't be vaccinating | whole populations, by which I mean including low-risk | elements, whilst poorer countries cannot vaccinate even | high-risk ones. That's a different question though. | hef19898 wrote: | The EU purchased around 5 doses per inhabitant, including | children (from all suppliers). With the explicit goal to | share these doses with other states. I like that idea a | lot. | | That being said, none of the short term measures curently | being discussed, will help getting any doses earlier. And | the total amount ordered is more than enough. | eyko wrote: | I'd reckon because a private company is getting paid to | manufacture and sell the vaccines, at "Cost of Goods" | initially, then at a profit after an agreed period, in | exchange for funding and, eventually more profits. These | are pre-orders for a vaccine, and the contract has a | section on how it will be funded. AstraZeneca is under no | obligation to not do business with anyone else (provided | they can meet their contractual obligations). | | If the both the UK and the EU wanted a million doses each | and AZ has the capacity to manufacture 5 million, then | nothing stops them from entering into other agreements with | countries in Africa, South America, or Oceania. | | They probably overestimated their capacity and are now | pushing back on deadlines. I don't have much to criticise | AZ for on that since we've all been there, but you can't | tell a paying customer that you have other customers that | paid you first, when you signed a contract agreeing to | meeting certain deadlines. It simply does not matter. Did | AstraZeneca lie in their negotiations regarding their | capacity? Let's also remember that this was likely brought | up when discussing the funding for manufacturing sites in | Europe and the UK. | oli5679 wrote: | The capacity to manufacture it in UK was developed by a UK | government grant that was issued in May and a UK government | order that was issued soon after. It is being produced at cost | by AstraZeneca. The UK acted quickly, realising that each week | of lockdown costs a similar amount to their entire vaccine | expenditure. They got scientific advice and backed a range of | different technologies. | | Meanwhile the EU acted bureaucratically and treated this like a | procurement exercise, squabbling about spending and placing | orders in December. It is now scapegoating andsuing a company | that is producing the vaccine at cost. | | GSK has every inventive to scale up capacity and produce as | many doses as possible, and has no profit motive to divert | doses. It is simply abiding by its agreement with the UK to use | UK funded capacity to supply the country first, whilst making | best efforts to iron out kinks for European orders. | | https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-s... | NiceWayToDoIT wrote: | > "Uncensored" | | So what are those black out parts? | | Maybe just partly "uncensored" | arendtio wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25960718 | zoobab wrote: | See https://twitter.com/VrlPlt/status/1355219237745405954 | beefield wrote: | EU:You've... you've got a nice IP protection here, AstraZeneca | | AstraZeneca: Yes. | | EU: We wouldn't want anything to happen to it. | | AstraZeneca: What? | | Germany: No, what EU means is it would be a shame if... | mytailorisrich wrote: | There's a lot of controversy and arguments on this at the moment, | a lot of it is political with a good dose of Brexit added in. | | So to stir towards more positive aspects: | | AstraZeneca, which are between a rock and a hard place here, has | agreed to supply the EU at cost. I don't know if it's their | global policy, I hope it is, but they should be commended for | that. That's _not_ what all suppliers of Covid vaccines do. | | More generally regarding the Covid vaccines: I find quite | extraordinary that less than 12 months after Covid-19 was first | analysed we have _several_ vaccines available and we also have | the capacity to produce hundreds of millions of doses. Science + | technology + capitalism is a hugely potent combination (ok, sorry | that last sentence may seem political but this is what drove the | development of these large scale production technologies). | | Edit: | | It looks like I may need to clarify my mentioning capitalism. I | was referring to production capability. | | _Private_ companies (not only in biotech, in every industry) | have developed extremely effective and efficient ways to produce | huge quantities of whatever they produce because driving down | costs and increasing efficiency and quantities is how you | increase profit. This is why we can now produce so many doses of | Covid vaccines quickly and at relatively low cost. | DoingIsLearning wrote: | > AstraZeneca, which are between a rock and a hard place here, | has agreed to supply the EU at cost | | For the sake of completeness AstraZeneca have agreed to supply | _all_ markets at cost, not just EU. | | This was part of their contractual obligation with Oxford | University. | | The vaccine was developed with Oxford Uni funding, AstraZeneca | signed an agreement to mass manufacture under the condition | that it would be sold worldwide without a profit margin. | mytailorisrich wrote: | Thanks for giving details and to make clear that this is | their global policy. They should indeed be commended for | that. | addicted wrote: | Oxford University should be commended for that. | | We would all have been better off of Oxford had partnered | with someone with more experience that hadn't already | messed up: 1) The scientific trials 2) Manufacturing the | vaccine 3) The legal agreements they signed with various | governments. | | Moderna, for example, has also fallen behind on their | supplies but they signed sensible contracts (and followed | sensible policies) and don't have governments hounding them | for more supplies. | mytailorisrich wrote: | > _Oxford University should be commended for that._ | | If you go that way it depends on the terms of the deal | and how much AstraZeneca is paying them. But yes, good on | them for making that demand. | | AstraZeneca, a private commercial company, has agreed to | produce a vaccine at cost in huge volumes and they should | be commended for it in any case. As I said, not all Covid | vaccines are produced at cost, some of them are even sold | at, I suspect, eye watering margins. | soperj wrote: | Thanks for this, makes it much clearer. I do wonder though if | there will be any Hollywood creative accounting there with | the "no profit margin". | [deleted] | tsimionescu wrote: | > Science + technology + capitalism is a hugely potent | combination | | Wait till you see what science + technology - capitalism can | achieve! | | But more seriously, we're also seeing the problems of | capitalism here. Apart from the problems with its price, | especially for the third world, I also think it's important to | realize that the main motivation for vaccine skepticism is | capitalism and the bad incentives it creates for companies. | People understand that it's in any of these companies' best | interest to lie about effectiveness and safety of these | vaccines, and that they have more than enough money to hide any | potential wrong doing for a long time. | | I am NOT an anti-vaxxer. I take flu shots every year, and I | will get this vaccine as well as soon as I am offered the | chance (I'm neither at risk nor working in a crucial industry). | But the pharmaceutical industry deserves its reputation to some | extent, and it is mostly capitalism's fault that we have these | huge behemoths that can act with impunity. | tomcam wrote: | A sincere question here. There may be many positive answers | that I don't know about. Which non-capitalist ventures have | done as good a job as capitalist ones at creating drugs? | itronitron wrote: | besides religion? | tsimionescu wrote: | The best examples would be many vaccines - the polio | vaccine, the flu vaccine, the BCG vaccine for TB, the | rabies vaccine , the measles vaccine (not the modern MMR - | which was created at Merck - but the older measles-only | vaccine) and others. Paracetamol/acetaminophen is a very | common drug that was also developed in a University | setting. | | The Pasteur Institute in France is a major source of non- | corporate medical research, at least historically. There | are similar institutes in many countries which produce both | research and actually manufacture drugs to be used in | public health campaigns directly. | tomcam wrote: | With respect, those are all half a century ago. Corporate | pharmaceutical companies are treating out hundreds of new | solutions a year. Again, I feel that system is fairly | corrupt and mismanaged. I'm not trying to defend it. But | practically speaking it seems to be doing an immensely | better job these days than government sectors. | tsimionescu wrote: | Yes, but that is by design - the state has retreated or | stagnated in this space, preferring to let companies | drive research and reap profits. We can't then be | surprised that the companies are out-competing the state. | | Not to mention that one example I forgot about is exactly | the Oxford/AZ vaccine - the vaccine itself was developed | by a (private, true) university, not a pharmaceutical | company. | xiphias2 wrote: | There's no capitalism going on here. I have parents over 70 | in the EU, I would gladly pay $5000 per person to get them | vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfeiser or Moderna), but | people under 60 are being vaccinated in Israel right now for | free. | | Vaccination right now is completely political, governments | took over control instead of just regulating safety and | efficiency of the vaccines. | tsimionescu wrote: | There is no market for the vaccine at the consumer level, | but the vaccine is still bought and sold in a capitalist | market, with states as buyers. Governments that could | afford this have done what they can for their populations, | that's great, but many countries were unable to access the | initial doses and are not allowed to manufacture the | vaccine themselves. | | The situation has improved since the beginning of the year, | and some companies are better than others at supporting | public health. | maxerickson wrote: | How do you make a vaccine that doesn't have a price? | | It's going to require resources no matter what, and the $5 to | $10 that the AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines are estimated at is | a pretty good value. | | (for instance, the US could buy vaccine for the entire globe | and not worry about the cost) | tsimionescu wrote: | You create the formula and make it public so that it can be | produced easily. Then, many manufacturers, ranging from | generic drug manufacturers to public health institutes can | produce the drug at cost, even in third world countries. | maxerickson wrote: | It's a complex product (the AstraZeneca vaccine is a | virus that stimulates the body to produce a protein that | is present on SARS-CoV2). Maybe sharing the IP more | widely would have been the better thing to do, but it | wouldn't have resulted in it being 'produced easily'. | tsimionescu wrote: | True, 'produced easily' was an overstatement. Still, I | doubt AZ is the only company with the know-how and | equipment required to produce such a vaccine (and it's | also likely that some of the know-how is itself a | protected secret or patent of AZ, which just throws the | ball further down the line). | tomatocracy wrote: | As I understand it, their policy is to supply developed markets | at cost until the pandemic is over (whatever that means) and | developing markets at cost in perpetuity. | hef19898 wrote: | The pandemic could e over on July 1st 2021, according to the | contract. No idea how that is actually defined, I would hve | expected some stipulations around the WHo delaring it or | something. | | Fun fact, epidemics are included as force majeur events. And | the Force Majeur paragraph is a carbon copy from the last | fulfillment contract I read. | ajvarparadise_ wrote: | Sorry for asking, is there a tldr: ? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-29 23:01 UTC)