agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 28, 2021 17:33:06 GMT
Couple of updates from Sky News:
- AZ have agreed to publish details of the contract they have with the EU
- The AZ boss has said they will deliver 28m doses to UK by end of February (if that's not pouring oil on troubled waters I don't know what is)
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 28, 2021 17:50:06 GMT
Couple of updates from Sky News:
- AZ have agreed to publish details of the contract they have with the EU
- The AZ boss has said they will deliver 28m doses to UK by end of February (if that's not pouring oil on troubled waters I don't know what is)
This is interesting from the bbc:
"It [AstraZeneca] said its agreement with the EU allowed the option of supplying Europe from UK sites, but only once the UK had sufficient supplies. "As soon as we can, we'll help the EU," chief executive Pascal Soriot has said.
You'd like to think he is pretty confident of the contractual certainty of that statement.
I do agree with the EU, that what matters is what the contractual commitments are, not per se who put their order in first just because they placed it first.
EDIT: Given all the known risks with standing up manufacaturing and distribution capability for a new vaccine, you would have expected the terms in the contracts to have been suitably 'hedged'.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 28, 2021 18:42:22 GMT
This is interesting from the bbc:
"It [AstraZeneca] said its agreement with the EU allowed the option of supplying Europe from UK sites, but only once the UK had sufficient supplies. "As soon as we can, we'll help the EU," chief executive Pascal Soriot has said.
You'd like to think he is pretty confident of the contractual certainty of that statement.
I do agree with the EU, that what matters is what the contractual commitments are, not per se who put their order in first just because they placed it first.
EDIT: Given all the known risks with standing up manufacaturing and distribution capability for a new vaccine, you would have expected the terms in the contracts to have been suitably 'hedged'.
Unfortunately, the fact that something is written in a contract doesn't mean it is legally enforceable. As an example, say AZ entered into a contract tomorrow to supply 50m doses of the vaccine to Malaysia. The terms of the Malaysian contract state that AZ must fulfill the entire order before supplying any more vaccine to the EU:
- Would the EU be happy with this?
- Would it be legally enforceable?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 5,996
|
Post by registerme on Jan 28, 2021 19:07:47 GMT
This is interesting from the bbc: "It [AstraZeneca] said its agreement with the EU allowed the option of supplying Europe from UK sites, but only once the UK had sufficient supplies. "As soon as we can, we'll help the EU," chief executive Pascal Soriot has said. You'd like to think he is pretty confident of the contractual certainty of that statement. I do agree with the EU, that what matters is what the contractual commitments are, not per se who put their order in first just because they placed it first.
EDIT: Given all the known risks with standing up manufacaturing and distribution capability for a new vaccine, you would have expected the terms in the contracts to have been suitably 'hedged'.
Unfortunately, the fact that something is written in a contract doesn't mean it is legally enforceable. As an example, say AZ entered into a contract tomorrow to supply 50m doses of the vaccine to Malaysia. The terms of the Malaysian contract state that AZ must fulfill the entire order before supplying any more vaccine to the EU: - Would the EU be happy with this?
- Would it be legally enforceable?
Equally you could envisage that AZN (or whoever) were actually in breach wrt their contract with the EU, but the only way they could avoid that would be by breaching their agreement with the UK. What then? It's a mess, and what's annoying is that it was likely avoidable in the first place, and given that it arose it could certainly have been handled more deftly. My gut still says the EU are more at fault, but my gut has been known to be wrong in the past .
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,845
Likes: 11,072
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 28, 2021 23:24:21 GMT
Here's the next one - 89% and effective against Kent & SA AIUI. Made up north and the EU hasnt yet placed an order, only preliminary talks, whereas UK has ordered 60 mil. Not due until later in the year. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55850352I also note that there is a redacted contract (APA) between the EU & another manufacture on the EU site, this contains the following clause The participating Member States acknowledge that, in light of the uncertainties both with respect to the development of the Product and the accelerated establishment of sufficient manufacturing capacities, the delivery dates set out in this APA are the contractor's current best estimates only and subject to change. Due to possible delays in the authorisation, production and release of the Product, no Product or only reduced volumes of the Product may be available at the estimated delivery dates set out in this APA. In the case of delays to the anticipated availability of the Product, the contractor aims to allocate the doses of the Product fairly across the demand of doses, which the contractor has or will contractually commit to towards its present and future customers, as such doses become available. I note that there is also a requirement for individual states to conclude their own contract for the ultimate supply of the vaccine provisionally ordered under the APA I havent read it in full but wonder if the AZ contract is similar?
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 28, 2021 23:33:49 GMT
Here's the next one - 89% and effective against Kent & SA AIUI.... <snip> Not 89% against SA variant, more like 60% (non-HIV) or 49% (HIV & non-HIV). Relatively small sample size of 4,400 odd in SA but still results are of concern. It'll be interesting to see the results from J&J early next week who are also trialling in SA. Prior exposure to the virus in the placebo group appeared to have no bearing on whether they were infected again. Small sample size and all that but still....
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 5,996
|
Post by registerme on Jan 28, 2021 23:50:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 29, 2021 0:06:44 GMT
A good overview of existing vaccines and the challenges of adapting them for the new variants, in particular the SA variant. Good for Novavax (manufacturing facility in UK, good news for us) but not so good for AZN/Oxford, with Pfizer/Moderna mRNA types limited.
Recommend reading the whole thread if of interest....
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,857
Likes: 1,591
|
Post by benaj on Jan 29, 2021 0:11:16 GMT
Here's the next one - 89% and effective against Kent & SA AIUI.... <snip> Not 89% against SA variant, more like 60% (non-HIV) or 49% (HIV & non-HIV). Relatively small sample size of 4,400 odd in SA but still results are of concern. It'll be interesting to see the results from J&J early next week who are also trialling in SA. Prior exposure to the virus in the placebo group appeared to have no bearing on whether they were infected again. Small sample size and all that but still.... 60% for SA variant is probably as good as it gets at the moment from vaccine.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,845
Likes: 11,072
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 29, 2021 0:53:02 GMT
Its there, just seems a little shy so is sticking close to the text rather than exposed out in the margin Otherwise I see Pfizer, on the basis of a very small study (20), have shown their vaccine works against UK & SA variants in the lab though that clearly needs to be supported by field work in the light of Novarax results.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 5,996
|
Post by registerme on Jan 29, 2021 1:01:19 GMT
Its there, just seems a little shy so is sticking close to the text rather than exposed out in the margin {blushes}
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 29, 2021 9:11:10 GMT
Not 89% against SA variant, more like 60% (non-HIV) or 49% (HIV & non-HIV). Relatively small sample size of 4,400 odd in SA but still results are of concern. Incidentally, that highlights how many people have HIV in South Africa. 13.1% of the total population according to the latest estimates, or 19.0% of those aged 15 to 49.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 29, 2021 9:17:52 GMT
Here's the next one - 89% and effective against Kent & SA AIUI. Made up north and the EU hasnt yet placed an order, only preliminary talks, whereas UK has ordered 60 mil. Not due until later in the year. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55850352I also note that there is a redacted contract (APA) between the EU & another manufacture on the EU site, this contains the following clause The participating Member States acknowledge that, in light of the uncertainties both with respect to the development of the Product and the accelerated establishment of sufficient manufacturing capacities, the delivery dates set out in this APA are the contractor's current best estimates only and subject to change. Due to possible delays in the authorisation, production and release of the Product, no Product or only reduced volumes of the Product may be available at the estimated delivery dates set out in this APA. In the case of delays to the anticipated availability of the Product, the contractor
aims to allocate the doses of the Product fairly across the demand of doses, which the contractor has or will contractually commit to towards its present and future customers, as such doses become available. I note that there is also a requirement for individual states to conclude their own contract for the ultimate supply of the vaccine provisionally ordered under the APA I havent read it in full but wonder if the AZ contract is similar? I posted yesterday about the dangers of woolly terms in contracts, and this appears a good example.
There is a world of difference between aiming to do something and actually doing it (this time next year Rodney, we'll be millionaires). Also who decides what is fair? I assume that if the intention was to share available doses on a pro rata basis dependent on the size of the order placed, then the agreement would have said that.
PS: while news of the Novovax vaccine is good news, don't forget that the EU contract with AZ says that if AZ fall behind with deliveries, then the UK is obliged to divert all future vaccine supplies to the EU regardless of who has manufactured it.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 29, 2021 9:24:16 GMT
This is interesting from the bbc:
"It [AstraZeneca] said its agreement with the EU allowed the option of supplying Europe from UK sites, but only once the UK had sufficient supplies. "As soon as we can, we'll help the EU," chief executive Pascal Soriot has said.
You'd like to think he is pretty confident of the contractual certainty of that statement.
I do agree with the EU, that what matters is what the contractual commitments are, not per se who put their order in first just because they placed it first.
EDIT: Given all the known risks with standing up manufacaturing and distribution capability for a new vaccine, you would have expected the terms in the contracts to have been suitably 'hedged'.
Unfortunately, the fact that something is written in a contract doesn't mean it is legally enforceable. As an example, say AZ entered into a contract tomorrow to supply 50m doses of the vaccine to Malaysia. The terms of the Malaysian contract state that AZ must fulfill the entire order before supplying any more vaccine to the EU:
- Would the EU be happy with this?
- Would it be legally enforceable?
Of course not everything in a contract is always legally enforceable. Indeed at one extreme, f it simply cannot be fullfilled then no amount of legal 'enforcement' will achieve anything. However, if AZ entered into a contract with the EU which was not compatible with it fulfilling other contractual commitments it had made, in conditions which could have been reasonably foreseen by AZ, then that does put a different set of optics on things.
Anyway, the point I was making was not the one you've bolded, but the bit after it: i.e. the simple one that just because one contract was signed before the other does not of itself mean that it automatically take precedence.
FWIW, AZ will have known the risks with standing up new manufacturing / supply capacity so I'd be staggered if they had not covered their backsides adequately. And the UK Govt seems to be pretty confident in 'its' supply, so entirely possible their contract does have priority written in some form, potentially as a result of investment into the UK manufacturing capability.
We will see, though more likely some form of agreement is going to emerge in short order I suspect.
Edit: Insertion of a rather important missing "Not"
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 29, 2021 9:25:01 GMT
Here's the next one - 89% and effective against Kent & SA AIUI. Made up north and the EU hasnt yet placed an order, only preliminary talks, whereas UK has ordered 60 mil. Not due until later in the year. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55850352I also note that there is a redacted contract (APA) between the EU & another manufacture on the EU site, this contains the following clause The participating Member States acknowledge that, in light of the uncertainties both with respect to the development of the Product and the accelerated establishment of sufficient manufacturing capacities, the delivery dates set out in this APA are the contractor's current best estimates only and subject to change. Due to possible delays in the authorisation, production and release of the Product, no Product or only reduced volumes of the Product may be available at the estimated delivery dates set out in this APA. In the case of delays to the anticipated availability of the Product, the contractor
aims to allocate the doses of the Product fairly across the demand of doses, which the contractor has or will contractually commit to towards its present and future customers, as such doses become available. I note that there is also a requirement for individual states to conclude their own contract for the ultimate supply of the vaccine provisionally ordered under the APA I havent read it in full but wonder if the AZ contract is similar? I posted yesterday about the dangers of woolly terms in contracts, and this appears a good example. There is a world of difference between aiming to do something and actually doing it (this time next year Rodney, we'll be millionaires). Also who decides what is fair? I assume that if the intention was to share available doses on a pro rata basis dependent on the size of the order placed, then the agreement would have said that. David Allen Green posted his analysis on the contract terms: What can be worked out about the ‘best efforts’ clause in the AstraZeneca vaccine supply agreement?
|
|