Better day today ENGLAND ONLY: 344,464 jabs total (up 36% vs yesterday, but down 15,443 vs week ago), 343,193 first, 1,271 second.
Hopefully should be nearly 400k then for the UK as a whole.
Probably a shade below the required rate but I need to do the maths.
A notably poor midweek this week has certainly hurt us.
But, it's recoverable.
I have said from the start that I thought they would just miss their target, that end of Feb was more likely, as it didn't seem like they factored in any potential further delays.
End of Feb would still be a fantastic effort and what we do know is if the supply is there, the capacity has been smoothly expanded such they can do many 100ks a day.
Completely disagree. No wiggling.
The Valentine's Day target is the right target and can and should be met.
Let's do it.
I think they'll only miss it on a technicality, that take-up won't be 100% in the vulnerable groups.
I think the target is vaccines offered though, de jure?
(Although you are right that then public will consider it to be vaccines administered and therefore that is indeed the de facto target)
I spoke too soon about the French keeping quiet...
The contract between the European Commission and AstraZeneca shows the company made a clear commitment to deliver a certain number of doses, says French MEP and medical doctor Veronique Trillet-Lenoir.
She tells BBC Radio 4's World at One: "We are very concerned by the fact that AstraZeneca could not follow its commitments."
While she hasn't seen the figures because they were blocked out in the copy shown to MEPs, she says there was a specific number of doses promised.
Trillet-Lenoir, a member of French President Emmanuel Macron's En Marche party, says the company has to use its "best efforts" to meet its commitments, which means using factories in the EU and elsewhere, such as the UK.
"The firm has taken engagements with the European Commission, with the UK, and should do what it promised to do," she says, adding that if it cannot meet its obligations it should use contract manufacturing companies, as Pfizer has done with Sanofi.
Asked who the French public blame for the delay, she says: “People in France like to blame the government; in the present time they should really blame the firm."
----
Not sure why being a medical doctor is relevant to an argument over contract law.
The bolded part -
“People in France like to blame the government; in the present time they should really blame the firm."
Is really what this is about, the EU and its member states are trying to shift the blame for a rubbish vaccine strategy. In countries that have also had pretty rubbish virus containment strategies too so it's not like Australia or Japan who can wait it out a bit longer because not many are suffering from it.
I spoke too soon about the French keeping quiet...
The contract between the European Commission and AstraZeneca shows the company made a clear commitment to deliver a certain number of doses, says French MEP and medical doctor Veronique Trillet-Lenoir.
She tells BBC Radio 4's World at One: "We are very concerned by the fact that AstraZeneca could not follow its commitments."
While she hasn't seen the figures because they were blocked out in the copy shown to MEPs, she says there was a specific number of doses promised.
Trillet-Lenoir, a member of French President Emmanuel Macron's En Marche party, says the company has to use its "best efforts" to meet its commitments, which means using factories in the EU and elsewhere, such as the UK.
"The firm has taken engagements with the European Commission, with the UK, and should do what it promised to do," she says, adding that if it cannot meet its obligations it should use contract manufacturing companies, as Pfizer has done with Sanofi.
Asked who the French public blame for the delay, she says: “People in France like to blame the government; in the present time they should really blame the firm."
----
Not sure why a medical doctor is relevant to an argument over contract law.
Any comment from them on the failure of AZN to meet the UK's order on time?
That really is key here. The EU is taking anger at a failure to deliver, which has happened all over, and insisted that justifies, well, anything they want to do.
Better day today ENGLAND ONLY: 344,464 jabs total (up 36% vs yesterday, but down 15,443 vs week ago), 343,193 first, 1,271 second.
Hopefully should be nearly 400k then for the UK as a whole.
Probably a shade below the required rate but I need to do the maths.
A notably poor midweek this week has certainly hurt us.
But, it's recoverable.
Unsurprisingly we're being hit by supply issues because of the Pfizer upgrades and a slower than expected ramp up to 2.5m doses per week at the two AZ sites.
Hopefully by April we will be swimming in vaccines with Moderna and Novavax expected for volume delivery around that time.
I really think we can be looking towards beer garden opening at Easter, probably table service only.
Then back to complete unrestricted hospitality opening by the late May bank holiday at the very latest for those vaccinated and those in low-risk age groups.
The vaccine news is good, in fact it's very good indeed.
We also should be hosting Euro 2021 with full crowds, attendance restricted to children and those who have had at least one jab.
What better way to celebrate NHS workers?
Tbh, with Novavax and Moderna both expected in April I wouldn't be surprised if the government removes the 12 week policy at that point, there wouldn't be any need for it especially for younger cohorts who they will want to ensure don't forget to go for the second jab because "everything's back to normal now anyway".
It means we could be out of this shit by May/June with everyone having had both doses by then, Novavax is 4 weeks from beginning to immunity and Moderna is 6 weeks from first jab to full immunity.
They may well stick with it for the AZN vaccine, as the delayed booster seems to work better. Interestingly, the similar J&J vaccine single shot trial showed peak protection came after about seven weeks, and in the two shot trial they are using eight weeks between shots.
Another point - the EU still is in the process of negotiating contracts with other manufacturers.
I bet the lawyers for those manufacturers will be making very, very sure the EU can't play games with them
e.g. As here from the Telegraph this morning:
"The European Commission is in negotiations with Novavax about the amount of Covid-19 vaccines it is going to order, after a jab trialled in the UK was shown to be highly effective against the Kent variant Germany's health minister said. Britain has already secured 60 million doses of the new vaccine, which will be produced at Stockton on Tees. If approved, it will give Britain access to 217 million vaccine doses in total."
As ever, late to the show, and this time they won't be able to try and blame anyone but themselves for the consequences.
Meanwhile, I would expect that the EU in due course will also want to extend its contract with AZ to secure access to additional doses. Whether AZ would be prepared to give them the time of day is a moot point.
I think this is the way out of the impasse - EU will agree a 'deal' with AZN that includes ramping up production within the EU, partly funded by the EU. This may be combined with a small amount delivered from UK factories and will be sold as an EU triumph. It won't make a blind bit of difference in the short term mind.
There’s one more for Priti’s inbox. How does the purpose for which you break into an aerodrome have any bearing on whether or not your actions endangered aircraft?
Should be a one-clause bill to amend the necessary legislation, if judges are going to decide that “protesting” inside an active aerodrome is in any way okay.
Yes, maybe I'm being an idiot and someone can correct me but if the UK is only deemed part of the EU in section 5.4 it removes any ambiguity for all the other sections as the UK is definitely not included for 5.1 or anywhere else.
I expected the EU to fight this based on the ambiguity of whether the UK counted as being in the EU or not during the transition period but that's surely not possible now.
Yes, it's completely unambiguous. Spectacularly bad drafting, but not ambiguous drafting. I'm sure they didn't mean to exclude the UK manufacturing facility from 5.1, but that's what they've done. In fact, AZ would have been in breach of the contract if they'd been trying to manufacture the Initial Doses in the UK rather than in the EU.
Yes, actually that's a good point. If the UK is considered an acceptable manufacturing site for the purposes of 5.4 but isn't listed in 5.1 then what mechanism exists for the EU to ask for supplies to be redirected?
This does seem somewhat of an own goal, but I don't speak legalese so maybe my reading is wrong.
5.1 seems to completely absolve AZN of any responsibility to manufacture the doses outside of the EU, regardless of what 5.4 says.
No, as there is a plausible ambiguity within 5.1, too. AZN is to use its BRE to manufacture within the EU, and to use its BRE to deliver the (redacted) number of doses. If the second part of the obligation meant to deliver only those doses manufactured within the EU, there wouldn't be a need for clause 5.4.
Yes there would because 5.4 is not about obligation. It is about where the EU will accept vaccine production without further checks/permission. It does not give the EU rights to production from the UK, only says that if AZN chooses to supply from the UK that is acceptable for the EU.
Hence the reason explicitly states it applies only to 5.4.
It is also about obligation: ...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. ...
"Within the EU" and section 5.4 clearly defined that EU doesn't include UK within that definition outside of section 5.4.
This really seems like a really big own goal by the EU, they're becoming the "who the fuck what's to deal with this shit" type of client.
To me it looks a bit sloppy, maybe, but nevertheless it's not fatally confusing. The UK is indeed only included in 5.4. But 5.1 says purely that AZ "must use best efforts to fill the initial dose from EU sites". That to me is not the same as saying they must use only EU sites. It's saying if they can fill the order from EU sites, they should. But if they can't they can use UK sites too, which 5.4 allows. And this happened. AZ under 5.5. informed the EC that the initial doses would be made at sites including the UK.
It is also consistent with them making no effort whatsoever at filling initial doses from non-EU sites.
Sorry, don't follow. What is consistent with that?
It isn't explicit about AZN making any effort whatsoever manufacturing in non-EU countries.
Ah ok. Well I don't know on that one. But it's not really what I'm talking about.
The point I'm making is that - contrary to various comments from others - I see no fatal contradiction between contract clauses 5.1 and 5.4. To me it makes perfect sense.
What 5.1 does is prioritize EU sites over UK sites for making the initial dose. It tells AZ to fill the order from within the EU if they can.
If they can't - which they concluded - the most reasonably deduced consequential is not that they stop at that. It's that they widen the sites to include the UK. 5.4 covers this.
And as confirmation of this understanding 5.5 says that AZ must inform the EC of the sites they are in practice going to use - on a best efforts basis - to fill the EC's initial order. They did, and those sites include the ones in the UK.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose.
Can't help noticing that the police in Britain aren't as popular as they used to be. The police in Germany and the United States are more popular for example.
In Germany yes, though I think the chart shows being a police officer is more popular as a career option for their children in the UK than the US
I dont think she's invincible, I just think at present her position, or rather the SNPs, is strong enough to shrug off things that would imperil others.
Definitely. She seems completely teflon just now.
As someone who appreciates a worthy adversary, it would help if your guys weren't so crap.
Can't help noticing that the police in Britain aren't as popular as they used to be. The police in Germany and the United States are more popular for example.
I'm seeing Police +38 in the UK (above the 23 average), while in US its just +14 ?
Better day today ENGLAND ONLY: 344,464 jabs total (up 36% vs yesterday, but down 15,443 vs week ago), 343,193 first, 1,271 second.
Hopefully should be nearly 400k then for the UK as a whole.
Probably a shade below the required rate but I need to do the maths.
A notably poor midweek this week has certainly hurt us.
But, it's recoverable.
Unsurprisingly we're being hit by supply issues because of the Pfizer upgrades and a slower than expected ramp up to 2.5m doses per week at the two AZ sites.
Hopefully by April we will be swimming in vaccines with Moderna and Novavax expected for volume delivery around that time.
I really think we can be looking towards beer garden opening at Easter, probably table service only.
Then back to complete unrestricted hospitality opening by the late May bank holiday at the very latest for those vaccinated and those in low-risk age groups.
The vaccine news is good, in fact it's very good indeed.
We also should be hosting Euro 2021 with full crowds, attendance restricted to children and those who have had at least one jab.
What better way to celebrate NHS workers?
Tbh, with Novavax and Moderna both expected in April I wouldn't be surprised if the government removes the 12 week policy at that point, there wouldn't be any need for it especially for younger cohorts who they will want to ensure don't forget to go for the second jab because "everything's back to normal now anyway".
It means we could be out of this shit by May/June with everyone having had both doses by then, Novavax is 4 weeks from beginning to immunity and Moderna is 6 weeks from first jab to full immunity.
They may well stick with it for the AZN vaccine, as the delayed booster seems to work better. Interestingly, the similar J&J vaccine single shot trial showed peak protection came after about seven weeks, and in the two shot trial they are using eight weeks between shots.
Yes, I think so too. The expert I spoke to on Wednesday said the same, they think the government's 12 week policy is driven by the AZ data as much as it is by ramping up partial immunity. They also said the rest of the world and the WHO will update guidance to follow if the UK shows in its data that there is a marked decrease in hospitalisations, deaths and cases with just a single Pfizer or AZ dose.
Automatically making your PDF bookmarks by using the paragraph text turns out to be a poor idea...
LOL!! What a bunch of amateurs.
The repeated breach of confidentiality demonstrates how just much they respect contract terms.
As I said earlier, they've become the "who the fuck wants to deal with this shit" client. We've all experienced it and eventually you stop dealing with them.
Yes, it reminds me of an absolutely awful client we had at my place, where we were contracted for three years.
Once the term was coming to a close, we simply didn't ask for an extension or renewal.
There was a very awkward conversation when the client called up and wondered if we had forgotten that the contract was due for renewal, and when could they expect us to file our request a renewal.
No, we said, we haven't forgotten, and, erm, how can we put this? Goodbye and God bless.
In their bluster to prove AZN wrong they've published a fully un-redacted contract, probably without consent of AZN.
I am sure it won't go unnoticed by the very expensive lawyers AZN have on retainer.
What was the phrase, never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake?
Looks like a very big mistake.
Any pharmaceutical firm must be wary of a client that does not appear to act in good faith. Does the EU suppose it will never again be in need of goodwill from AZ, or any large paharmaceutical company?
Interesting outcome. If that specific law was not for them I wonder what they should have been charged with, as it doesnt seen like a slap on the wrist should have been the outcome. Too late now I guess
Better day today ENGLAND ONLY: 344,464 jabs total (up 36% vs yesterday, but down 15,443 vs week ago), 343,193 first, 1,271 second.
Hopefully should be nearly 400k then for the UK as a whole.
Probably a shade below the required rate but I need to do the maths.
A notably poor midweek this week has certainly hurt us.
But, it's recoverable.
Unsurprisingly we're being hit by supply issues because of the Pfizer upgrades and a slower than expected ramp up to 2.5m doses per week at the two AZ sites.
Hopefully by April we will be swimming in vaccines with Moderna and Novavax expected for volume delivery around that time.
I really think we can be looking towards beer garden opening at Easter, probably table service only.
Then back to complete unrestricted hospitality opening by the late May bank holiday at the very latest for those vaccinated and those in low-risk age groups.
The vaccine news is good, in fact it's very good indeed.
We also should be hosting Euro 2021 with full crowds, attendance restricted to children and those who have had at least one jab.
What better way to celebrate NHS workers?
Tbh, with Novavax and Moderna both expected in April I wouldn't be surprised if the government removes the 12 week policy at that point, there wouldn't be any need for it especially for younger cohorts who they will want to ensure don't forget to go for the second jab because "everything's back to normal now anyway".
It means we could be out of this shit by May/June with everyone having had both doses by then, Novavax is 4 weeks from beginning to immunity and Moderna is 6 weeks from first jab to full immunity.
Indeed. I think there's a fair to middling chance that the healthy under 50s (no UHC) will be a one-jab cohort.
As you say, the realities of human behaviour means many youngsters simply won't show for Jab 2 anyway.
They get their vaccine passport on the second jab, that’s incentive to turn up.
Nah, reckon most young 'uns will be on J&J – it's a one jab regimen.
The Dutch are usually quite efficient and well organised, I wonder why their vaccination programme is the slowest in Europe atm. Just 1% so far.
They had a very strange attitude. When Pfizer was approved, most European countries started pretty much straight away, the Dutch said oh no rush, we will start in a 7-10 days. As if they were talking about going on a few fad diet, but wanted to get Christmas and New Year out of the way first.
Better day today ENGLAND ONLY: 344,464 jabs total (up 36% vs yesterday, but down 15,443 vs week ago), 343,193 first, 1,271 second.
Hopefully should be nearly 400k then for the UK as a whole.
Probably a shade below the required rate but I need to do the maths.
A notably poor midweek this week has certainly hurt us.
But, it's recoverable.
Unsurprisingly we're being hit by supply issues because of the Pfizer upgrades and a slower than expected ramp up to 2.5m doses per week at the two AZ sites.
Hopefully by April we will be swimming in vaccines with Moderna and Novavax expected for volume delivery around that time.
I really think we can be looking towards beer garden opening at Easter, probably table service only.
Then back to complete unrestricted hospitality opening by the late May bank holiday at the very latest for those vaccinated and those in low-risk age groups.
The vaccine news is good, in fact it's very good indeed.
We also should be hosting Euro 2021 with full crowds, attendance restricted to children and those who have had at least one jab.
What better way to celebrate NHS workers?
Tbh, with Novavax and Moderna both expected in April I wouldn't be surprised if the government removes the 12 week policy at that point, there wouldn't be any need for it especially for younger cohorts who they will want to ensure don't forget to go for the second jab because "everything's back to normal now anyway".
It means we could be out of this shit by May/June with everyone having had both doses by then, Novavax is 4 weeks from beginning to immunity and Moderna is 6 weeks from first jab to full immunity.
Indeed. I think there's a fair to middling chance that the healthy under 50s (no UHC) will be a one-jab cohort.
As you say, the realities of human behaviour means many youngsters simply won't show for Jab 2 anyway.
I think we should avoid that becuase there's compelling evidence that two jabs protects people from even catching it in the first place which further reduces the chance of serious mutations. People should definitely be encouraged and badgered into doing both of their doses on time, I'd make it part of getting the vaccine passport in September/October so we are in a place where there's no chance of having to lockdown over Xmas.
Agree, but my point is that I think many youngsters will be on J&J – so the government doesn't have to bother doing two jabs with a notoriously itinerant/footloose group.
Better day today ENGLAND ONLY: 344,464 jabs total (up 36% vs yesterday, but down 15,443 vs week ago), 343,193 first, 1,271 second.
Hopefully should be nearly 400k then for the UK as a whole.
Probably a shade below the required rate but I need to do the maths.
A notably poor midweek this week has certainly hurt us.
But, it's recoverable.
Unsurprisingly we're being hit by supply issues because of the Pfizer upgrades and a slower than expected ramp up to 2.5m doses per week at the two AZ sites.
Hopefully by April we will be swimming in vaccines with Moderna and Novavax expected for volume delivery around that time.
I really think we can be looking towards beer garden opening at Easter, probably table service only.
Then back to complete unrestricted hospitality opening by the late May bank holiday at the very latest for those vaccinated and those in low-risk age groups.
The vaccine news is good, in fact it's very good indeed.
We also should be hosting Euro 2021 with full crowds, attendance restricted to children and those who have had at least one jab.
What better way to celebrate NHS workers?
Tbh, with Novavax and Moderna both expected in April I wouldn't be surprised if the government removes the 12 week policy at that point, there wouldn't be any need for it especially for younger cohorts who they will want to ensure don't forget to go for the second jab because "everything's back to normal now anyway".
It means we could be out of this shit by May/June with everyone having had both doses by then, Novavax is 4 weeks from beginning to immunity and Moderna is 6 weeks from first jab to full immunity.
Indeed. I think there's a fair to middling chance that the healthy under 50s (no UHC) will be a one-jab cohort.
As you say, the realities of human behaviour means many youngsters simply won't show for Jab 2 anyway.
They get their vaccine passport on the second jab, that’s incentive to turn up.
Nah, reckon most young 'uns will be on J&J – it's a one jab regimen.
Won't be here until July though, why wait for that when Novavax and Moderna are available. I think the J&J doses will be reserved for Xmas as a potential mutation fighting booster for those top 9 groups in September/October to avoid any chance of a lockdown.
Another potentially hugely damaging side to this EU cluster fuck is that they're actively encouraging EU citizens to hate AZ; they're telling them "blame the company". This will no doubt lead to people disseminating the sort of 6.3% efficacy bullshit the German rag is still promoting, and we'll end up with lots of idiots around the world refusing this vaccine.
I want everyone vaccinated, perhaps most importantly the idiots.
Better day today ENGLAND ONLY: 344,464 jabs total (up 36% vs yesterday, but down 15,443 vs week ago), 343,193 first, 1,271 second.
Hopefully should be nearly 400k then for the UK as a whole.
Probably a shade below the required rate but I need to do the maths.
A notably poor midweek this week has certainly hurt us.
But, it's recoverable.
Unsurprisingly we're being hit by supply issues because of the Pfizer upgrades and a slower than expected ramp up to 2.5m doses per week at the two AZ sites.
Hopefully by April we will be swimming in vaccines with Moderna and Novavax expected for volume delivery around that time.
I really think we can be looking towards beer garden opening at Easter, probably table service only.
Then back to complete unrestricted hospitality opening by the late May bank holiday at the very latest for those vaccinated and those in low-risk age groups.
The vaccine news is good, in fact it's very good indeed.
We also should be hosting Euro 2021 with full crowds, attendance restricted to children and those who have had at least one jab.
What better way to celebrate NHS workers?
Tbh, with Novavax and Moderna both expected in April I wouldn't be surprised if the government removes the 12 week policy at that point, there wouldn't be any need for it especially for younger cohorts who they will want to ensure don't forget to go for the second jab because "everything's back to normal now anyway".
It means we could be out of this shit by May/June with everyone having had both doses by then, Novavax is 4 weeks from beginning to immunity and Moderna is 6 weeks from first jab to full immunity.
They may well stick with it for the AZN vaccine, as the delayed booster seems to work better. Interestingly, the similar J&J vaccine single shot trial showed peak protection came after about seven weeks, and in the two shot trial they are using eight weeks between shots.
Yes, I think so too. The expert I spoke to on Wednesday said the same, they think the government's 12 week policy is driven by the AZ data as much as it is by ramping up partial immunity. They also said the rest of the world and the WHO will update guidance to follow if the UK shows in its data that there is a marked decrease in hospitalisations, deaths and cases with just a single Pfizer or AZ dose.
Israel and UAE are sticking to three weeks’ gap for Pfizer, so we should soon see some comparative data with the UK for that vaccine.
Yes, maybe I'm being an idiot and someone can correct me but if the UK is only deemed part of the EU in section 5.4 it removes any ambiguity for all the other sections as the UK is definitely not included for 5.1 or anywhere else.
I expected the EU to fight this based on the ambiguity of whether the UK counted as being in the EU or not during the transition period but that's surely not possible now.
Yes, it's completely unambiguous. Spectacularly bad drafting, but not ambiguous drafting. I'm sure they didn't mean to exclude the UK manufacturing facility from 5.1, but that's what they've done. In fact, AZ would have been in breach of the contract if they'd been trying to manufacture the Initial Doses in the UK rather than in the EU.
Yes, actually that's a good point. If the UK is considered an acceptable manufacturing site for the purposes of 5.4 but isn't listed in 5.1 then what mechanism exists for the EU to ask for supplies to be redirected?
This does seem somewhat of an own goal, but I don't speak legalese so maybe my reading is wrong.
5.1 seems to completely absolve AZN of any responsibility to manufacture the doses outside of the EU, regardless of what 5.4 says.
No, as there is a plausible ambiguity within 5.1, too. AZN is to use its BRE to manufacture within the EU, and to use its BRE to deliver the (redacted) number of doses. If the second part of the obligation meant to deliver only those doses manufactured within the EU, there wouldn't be a need for clause 5.4.
Yes there would because 5.4 is not about obligation. It is about where the EU will accept vaccine production without further checks/permission. It does not give the EU rights to production from the UK, only says that if AZN chooses to supply from the UK that is acceptable for the EU.
Hence the reason explicitly states it applies only to 5.4.
It is also about obligation: ...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. ...
"Within the EU" and section 5.4 clearly defined that EU doesn't include UK within that definition outside of section 5.4.
This really seems like a really big own goal by the EU, they're becoming the "who the fuck what's to deal with this shit" type of client.
To me it looks a bit sloppy, maybe, but nevertheless it's not fatally confusing. The UK is indeed only included in 5.4. But 5.1 says purely that AZ "must use best efforts to fill the initial dose from EU sites". That to me is not the same as saying they must use only EU sites. It's saying if they can fill the order from EU sites, they should. But if they can't they can use UK sites too, which 5.4 allows. And this happened. AZ under 5.5. informed the EC that the initial doses would be made at sites including the UK.
It is also consistent with them making no effort whatsoever at filling initial doses from non-EU sites.
Sorry, don't follow. What is consistent with that?
It isn't explicit about AZN making any effort whatsoever manufacturing in non-EU countries.
Ah ok. Well I don't know on that one. But it's not really what I'm talking about.
The point I'm making is that - contrary to various comments from others - I see no fatal contradiction between contract clauses 5.1 and 5.4. To me it makes perfect sense.
What 5.1 does is prioritize EU sites over UK sites for making the initial dose. It tells AZ to fill the order from within the EU if they can.
If they can't - which they concluded - the most reasonably deduced consequential is not that they stop at that. It's that they widen the sites to include the UK. 5.4 covers this.
And as confirmation of this understanding 5.5 says that AZ must inform the EC of the sites they are in practice going to use - on a best efforts basis - to fill the EC's initial order. They did, and those sites include the ones in the UK.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose.
So says this barroom lawyer.
"And as confirmation of this understanding 5.5 says that AZ must inform the EC of the sites they are in practice going to use - on a best efforts basis - to fill the EC's initial order. They did, and those sites include the ones in the UK.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose."
How do you know this for sure. I've seen no statements from either party confirming this is the case. Pascal Soriot only said that AZ had the option of including UK manufacturing at some point in the future, which is consistent with section 5.4 and the EU hasn't released any paperwork related to notifications undertaken by AZ in relation to section 5.5 so there's no way to know who said what to who. You're making an assumption.
Moderna are cutting February deliveries to Italy and France. It'll be interesting to see if the EU demands US supplies like they've demanded our AZ ones.
Another potentially hugely damaging side to this EU cluster fuck is that they're actively encouraging EU citizens to hate AZ; they're telling them "blame the company". This will no doubt lead to people disseminating the sort of 6.3% efficacy bullshit the German rag is still promoting, and we'll end up with lots of idiots around the world refusing this vaccine.
I want everyone vaccinated, perhaps most importantly the idiots.
Its one thing playing silly buggers over bottles of Nando sauce crossing borders, quite another over the vaccinations, especially when a number of countries in Europe really aren't big into them before you start this nonsense.
Reading the BBC I cannot get over the ballsiness of the EU justice commissioner 'warning' against a vaccine war...by threatening a vaccine war and blaming the UK for 'wanting' it.
Yes, maybe I'm being an idiot and someone can correct me but if the UK is only deemed part of the EU in section 5.4 it removes any ambiguity for all the other sections as the UK is definitely not included for 5.1 or anywhere else.
I expected the EU to fight this based on the ambiguity of whether the UK counted as being in the EU or not during the transition period but that's surely not possible now.
Yes, it's completely unambiguous. Spectacularly bad drafting, but not ambiguous drafting. I'm sure they didn't mean to exclude the UK manufacturing facility from 5.1, but that's what they've done. In fact, AZ would have been in breach of the contract if they'd been trying to manufacture the Initial Doses in the UK rather than in the EU.
Yes, actually that's a good point. If the UK is considered an acceptable manufacturing site for the purposes of 5.4 but isn't listed in 5.1 then what mechanism exists for the EU to ask for supplies to be redirected?
This does seem somewhat of an own goal, but I don't speak legalese so maybe my reading is wrong.
5.1 seems to completely absolve AZN of any responsibility to manufacture the doses outside of the EU, regardless of what 5.4 says.
No, as there is a plausible ambiguity within 5.1, too. AZN is to use its BRE to manufacture within the EU, and to use its BRE to deliver the (redacted) number of doses. If the second part of the obligation meant to deliver only those doses manufactured within the EU, there wouldn't be a need for clause 5.4.
Yes there would because 5.4 is not about obligation. It is about where the EU will accept vaccine production without further checks/permission. It does not give the EU rights to production from the UK, only says that if AZN chooses to supply from the UK that is acceptable for the EU.
Hence the reason explicitly states it applies only to 5.4.
It is also about obligation: ...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. ...
"Within the EU" and section 5.4 clearly defined that EU doesn't include UK within that definition outside of section 5.4.
This really seems like a really big own goal by the EU, they're becoming the "who the fuck what's to deal with this shit" type of client.
To me it looks a bit sloppy, maybe, but nevertheless it's not fatally confusing. The UK is indeed only included in 5.4. But 5.1 says purely that AZ "must use best efforts to fill the initial dose from EU sites". That to me is not the same as saying they must use only EU sites. It's saying if they can fill the order from EU sites, they should. But if they can't they can use UK sites too, which 5.4 allows. And this happened. AZ under 5.5. informed the EC that the initial doses would be made at sites including the UK.
It is also consistent with them making no effort whatsoever at filling initial doses from non-EU sites.
Sorry, don't follow. What is consistent with that?
It isn't explicit about AZN making any effort whatsoever manufacturing in non-EU countries.
Ah ok. Well I don't know on that one. But it's not really what I'm talking about.
The point I'm making is that - contrary to various comments from others - I see no fatal contradiction between contract clauses 5.1 and 5.4. To me it makes perfect sense.
What 5.1 does is prioritize EU sites over UK sites for making the initial dose. It tells AZ to fill the order from within the EU if they can.
If they can't - which they concluded - the most reasonably deduced consequential is not that they stop at that. It's that they widen the sites to include the UK. 5.4 covers this.
And as confirmation of this understanding 5.5 says that AZ must inform the EC of the sites they are in practice going to use - on a best efforts basis - to fill the EC's initial order. They did, and those sites include the ones in the UK.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose.
So says this barroom lawyer.
"And as confirmation of this understanding 5.5 says that AZ must inform the EC of the sites they are in practice going to use - on a best efforts basis - to fill the EC's initial order. They did, and those sites include the ones in the UK.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose."
How do you know this for sure. I've seen no statements from either party confirming this is the case. Pascal Soriot only said that AZ had the option of including UK manufacturing at some point in the future, which is consistent with section 5.4 and the EU hasn't released any paperwork related to notifications undertaken by AZ in relation to section 5.5 so there's no way to know who said what to who. You're making an assumption.
Precisely. My point was that the contract does not oblige AZN to use non-EU facilities. Only that doses from UK facilities would be acceptable.
Yes, maybe I'm being an idiot and someone can correct me but if the UK is only deemed part of the EU in section 5.4 it removes any ambiguity for all the other sections as the UK is definitely not included for 5.1 or anywhere else.
I expected the EU to fight this based on the ambiguity of whether the UK counted as being in the EU or not during the transition period but that's surely not possible now.
Yes, it's completely unambiguous. Spectacularly bad drafting, but not ambiguous drafting. I'm sure they didn't mean to exclude the UK manufacturing facility from 5.1, but that's what they've done. In fact, AZ would have been in breach of the contract if they'd been trying to manufacture the Initial Doses in the UK rather than in the EU.
Yes, actually that's a good point. If the UK is considered an acceptable manufacturing site for the purposes of 5.4 but isn't listed in 5.1 then what mechanism exists for the EU to ask for supplies to be redirected?
This does seem somewhat of an own goal, but I don't speak legalese so maybe my reading is wrong.
5.1 seems to completely absolve AZN of any responsibility to manufacture the doses outside of the EU, regardless of what 5.4 says.
No, as there is a plausible ambiguity within 5.1, too. AZN is to use its BRE to manufacture within the EU, and to use its BRE to deliver the (redacted) number of doses. If the second part of the obligation meant to deliver only those doses manufactured within the EU, there wouldn't be a need for clause 5.4.
Yes there would because 5.4 is not about obligation. It is about where the EU will accept vaccine production without further checks/permission. It does not give the EU rights to production from the UK, only says that if AZN chooses to supply from the UK that is acceptable for the EU.
Hence the reason explicitly states it applies only to 5.4.
It is also about obligation: ...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. ...
"Within the EU" and section 5.4 clearly defined that EU doesn't include UK within that definition outside of section 5.4.
This really seems like a really big own goal by the EU, they're becoming the "who the fuck what's to deal with this shit" type of client.
To me it looks a bit sloppy, maybe, but nevertheless it's not fatally confusing. The UK is indeed only included in 5.4. But 5.1 says purely that AZ "must use best efforts to fill the initial dose from EU sites". That to me is not the same as saying they must use only EU sites. It's saying if they can fill the order from EU sites, they should. But if they can't they can use UK sites too, which 5.4 allows. And this happened. AZ under 5.5. informed the EC that the initial doses would be made at sites including the UK.
It is also consistent with them making no effort whatsoever at filling initial doses from non-EU sites.
Sorry, don't follow. What is consistent with that?
It isn't explicit about AZN making any effort whatsoever manufacturing in non-EU countries.
Ah ok. Well I don't know on that one. But it's not really what I'm talking about.
The point I'm making is that - contrary to various comments from others - I see no fatal contradiction between contract clauses 5.1 and 5.4. To me it makes perfect sense.
What 5.1 does is prioritize EU sites over UK sites for making the initial dose. It tells AZ to fill the order from within the EU if they can.
If they can't - which they concluded - the most reasonably deduced consequential is not that they stop at that. It's that they widen the sites to include the UK. 5.4 covers this.
And as confirmation of this understanding 5.5 says that AZ must inform the EC of the sites they are in practice going to use - on a best efforts basis - to fill the EC's initial order. They did, and those sites include the ones in the UK.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose.
So says this barroom lawyer.
"And as confirmation of this understanding 5.5 says that AZ must inform the EC of the sites they are in practice going to use - on a best efforts basis - to fill the EC's initial order. They did, and those sites include the ones in the UK.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose."
How do you know this for sure. I've seen no statements from either party confirming this is the case. Pascal Soriot only said that AZ had the option of including UK manufacturing at some point in the future, which is consistent with section 5.4 and the EU hasn't released any paperwork related to notifications undertaken by AZ in relation to section 5.5 so there's no way to know who said what to who. You're making an assumption.
Schedule A does include the UK sites, but it doesn't contradict what AZN CEO said.
Reading the BBC I cannot get over the ballsiness of the EU justice commissioner 'warning' against a vaccine war...by threatening a vaccine war and blaming the UK for 'wanting' it.
The BBC's (and Guardian's) reporting of this reads like EU press releases
Can't help noticing that the police in Britain aren't as popular as they used to be. The police in Germany and the United States are more popular for example.
I'm seeing Police +38 in the UK (above the 23 average), while in US its just +14 ?
Can't help noticing that the police in Britain aren't as popular as they used to be. The police in Germany and the United States are more popular for example.
I'm seeing Police +38 in the UK (above the 23 average), while in US its just +14 ?
The police are more unpopular here than I'd expect. A lot of people I know seem to have had a bad experience at some point or another when the police pulled a gun on them.
(Part of the problem being that the police are trained that it's safer to pull a gun than not, but this does nothing to increase trust in the police.)
On balance the folk that believe this sort of stuff and want to get rid of Scotland are a couple of degrees less ghastly than those who believe it but nevertheless want to cling on to us and block the means of leaving.
"AstraZeneca has also explicitly assured us in this contract that no other obligations would prevent the contract from being fulfilled" according to VDL.
Did she seriously believe that the much later EU contract automatically superseded every other agreement that AZ had made because, well, EU?
That isn't necessarily the implication.
I suppose that if Sean is right and the deal was signed with AZN Sweden then they would be telling he truth since the UK deal was with AZN UK. Separate companies.
Yes, that's the obvious stand-out to me.
AZ is being absolutely truthful in that warranty. If the warranty had said something like "AZ AB warrants that neither AZ AB, nor any other company in the AZ group of companies...…." then the Commission would have an argument, but that's not what the warranty says.
As a matter of contract law, the exact wording of warranties is very important to get right.
Without wishing to sound patronising, I think the idea of companies possessing legal personalities which are separate from other companies in the same group is something that people who are not familiar with company law find very hard to appreciate. That appears to include Ursula van Leyen and the other commissioners.
A couple of takes on the J&J results, inasmuch as they shed light on the effectiveness of the AZ vaccine. Remember that they are similar types of vaccine.
- J&J have reported that the effectiveness of the single dose seems to increase steadily out to 49 days. That is encouraging since it suggests the same may be true of AZ, or at least that there's no reason to suppose it will drop off if the second dose is delayed.
- J&J also report good results in over-65s and in diverse ethnic groups, again suggesting that the AZ one (where data is a bit lacking for now) will work OK in these groups.
Of course this is somewhat speculative, but it's still encouraging.
Can't help noticing that the police in Britain aren't as popular as they used to be. The police in Germany and the United States are more popular for example.
I'm seeing Police +38 in the UK (above the 23 average), while in US its just +14 ?
The police are more unpopular here than I'd expect. A lot of people I know seem to have had a bad experience at some point or another when the police pulled a gun on them.
(Part of the problem being that the police are trained that it's safer to pull a gun than not, but this does nothing to increase trust in the police.)
Police training in the States is very short and superficial, I believe.
This is surely the key point. Right now it looks like the EU has tried to be cute and get away with piggy-backing off of someone else's funding.
Yes, the EU is the guy who disappears to the gents when it's time for his round.
And then demands you buy him a super expensive drink the next round....while also eying up your drink.
And from my experience of a nameless individual - asks for crisps or peanuts too
And not the cheap ones...they want the fancy pants crisps.
They don't even ask, they just grab the packet of fancy pants expensive Pfizer crisps that you bought for yourself and eat the lot. Then claim that you shouldn't have put the packet on their table.
Mainly by 130 Labour-led councils across the country, including the cities of Manchester and Birmingham and in London under the direction of Labour Mayor Khan.
Similar reviews have been commissioned by the SNP led Glasgow city council, which predates the Black Lives Matter protests. The Labour Welsh government identified 209 monuments, buildings or street names linked with slavery too.
I have never, ever ever in my life come across a situation where a customer has demanded that a supplier publish a contract with another customer. You'd be laughed out of town if you demanded this in the commercial world. Appalling behaviour from UVDL. It's up to the UK Gov't and Astra whether or not they want our contract made public (And why should either party want to have it public), nothing at all to do with the EU.
Better day today ENGLAND ONLY: 344,464 jabs total (up 36% vs yesterday, but down 15,443 vs week ago), 343,193 first, 1,271 second.
Hopefully should be nearly 400k then for the UK as a whole.
Probably a shade below the required rate but I need to do the maths.
A notably poor midweek this week has certainly hurt us.
But, it's recoverable.
Unsurprisingly we're being hit by supply issues because of the Pfizer upgrades and a slower than expected ramp up to 2.5m doses per week at the two AZ sites.
Hopefully by April we will be swimming in vaccines with Moderna and Novavax expected for volume delivery around that time.
I really think we can be looking towards beer garden opening at Easter, probably table service only.
Then back to complete unrestricted hospitality opening by the late May bank holiday at the very latest for those vaccinated and those in low-risk age groups.
The vaccine news is good, in fact it's very good indeed.
We also should be hosting Euro 2021 with full crowds, attendance restricted to children and those who have had at least one jab.
What better way to celebrate NHS workers?
Tbh, with Novavax and Moderna both expected in April I wouldn't be surprised if the government removes the 12 week policy at that point, there wouldn't be any need for it especially for younger cohorts who they will want to ensure don't forget to go for the second jab because "everything's back to normal now anyway".
It means we could be out of this shit by May/June with everyone having had both doses by then, Novavax is 4 weeks from beginning to immunity and Moderna is 6 weeks from first jab to full immunity.
Indeed. I think there's a fair to middling chance that the healthy under 50s (no UHC) will be a one-jab cohort.
As you say, the realities of human behaviour means many youngsters simply won't show for Jab 2 anyway.
They get their vaccine passport on the second jab, that’s incentive to turn up.
Nah, reckon most young 'uns will be on J&J – it's a one jab regimen.
Won't be here until July though, why wait for that when Novavax and Moderna are available. I think the J&J doses will be reserved for Xmas as a potential mutation fighting booster for those top 9 groups in September/October to avoid any chance of a lockdown.
Ah, I'm with you.
Yes, okay, in that case you are quite right – apologies.
"AstraZeneca has also explicitly assured us in this contract that no other obligations would prevent the contract from being fulfilled" according to VDL.
Did she seriously believe that the much later EU contract automatically superseded every other agreement that AZ had made because, well, EU?
That isn't necessarily the implication.
I suppose that if Sean is right and the deal was signed with AZN Sweden then they would be telling he truth since the UK deal was with AZN UK. Separate companies.
Yes, that's the obvious stand-out to me.
AZ is being absolutely truthful in that warranty. If the warranty had said something like "AZ AB warrants that neither AZ AB, nor any other company in the AZ group of companies...…." then the Commission would have an argument, but that's not what the warranty says.
As a matter of contract law, the exact wording of warranties is very important to get right.
Without wishing to sound patronising, I think the idea of companies possessing legal personalities which are separate from other companies in the same group is something that people who are not familiar with company law find very hard to appreciate. That appears to include Ursula van Leyen and the other commissioners.
I wonder if the EU thought they were being cute? We won't sign up with AZ PLC 'coz they're British' instead we'll sign with AZ AB 'that'll show 'em!
So they are definitely going to use it then? Insanity.
Blocking Pfizer exports to UK, USA, UAE and Israel? Really, Ursula?
As pointed out earlier - what are the EU going to do when Pfizer and the other companies no longer have the raw ingredients required to make more.
They’ll just shut the Belgian line, and put all their resources into others. It’s totally nuts, and ends up with fewer vaccines being produced at a time when we need them urgently.
It's amazing that Bild seems to be the grown up in the room in Germany, pointing out that export bans will result in retaliation from other nations which ends in no vaccines being produced at all.
On balance the folk that believe this sort of stuff and want to get rid of Scotland are a couple of degrees less ghastly than those who believe it but nevertheless want to cling on to us and block the means of leaving.
Depressing reading this sort of thing. Alright for him living in Norfolk. Probably has a St George's flag fluttering in his front garden. Complete lack of imagination about what we stand to collectively lose by falling out and separating.
Yes, maybe I'm being an idiot and someone can correct me but if the UK is only deemed part of the EU in section 5.4 it removes any ambiguity for all the other sections as the UK is definitely not included for 5.1 or anywhere else.
I expected the EU to fight this based on the ambiguity of whether the UK counted as being in the EU or not during the transition period but that's surely not possible now.
Yes, it's completely unambiguous. Spectacularly bad drafting, but not ambiguous drafting. I'm sure they didn't mean to exclude the UK manufacturing facility from 5.1, but that's what they've done. In fact, AZ would have been in breach of the contract if they'd been trying to manufacture the Initial Doses in the UK rather than in the EU.
Yes, actually that's a good point. If the UK is considered an acceptable manufacturing site for the purposes of 5.4 but isn't listed in 5.1 then what mechanism exists for the EU to ask for supplies to be redirected?
This does seem somewhat of an own goal, but I don't speak legalese so maybe my reading is wrong.
5.1 seems to completely absolve AZN of any responsibility to manufacture the doses outside of the EU, regardless of what 5.4 says.
No, as there is a plausible ambiguity within 5.1, too. AZN is to use its BRE to manufacture within the EU, and to use its BRE to deliver the (redacted) number of doses. If the second part of the obligation meant to deliver only those doses manufactured within the EU, there wouldn't be a need for clause 5.4.
Yes there would because 5.4 is not about obligation. It is about where the EU will accept vaccine production without further checks/permission. It does not give the EU rights to production from the UK, only says that if AZN chooses to supply from the UK that is acceptable for the EU.
Hence the reason explicitly states it applies only to 5.4.
It is also about obligation: ...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. ...
"Within the EU" and section 5.4 clearly defined that EU doesn't include UK within that definition outside of section 5.4.
This really seems like a really big own goal by the EU, they're becoming the "who the fuck what's to deal with this shit" type of client.
To me it looks a bit sloppy, maybe, but nevertheless it's not fatally confusing. The UK is indeed only included in 5.4. But 5.1 says purely that AZ "must use best efforts to fill the initial dose from EU sites". That to me is not the same as saying they must use only EU sites. It's saying if they can fill the order from EU sites, they should. But if they can't they can use UK sites too, which 5.4 allows. And this happened. AZ under 5.5. informed the EC that the initial doses would be made at sites including the UK.
It is also consistent with them making no effort whatsoever at filling initial doses from non-EU sites.
Sorry, don't follow. What is consistent with that?
It isn't explicit about AZN making any effort whatsoever manufacturing in non-EU countries.
Ah ok. Well I don't know on that one. But it's not really what I'm talking about.
The point I'm making is that - contrary to various comments from others - I see no fatal contradiction between contract clauses 5.1 and 5.4. To me it makes perfect sense.
What 5.1 does is prioritize EU sites over UK sites for making the initial dose. It tells AZ to fill the order from within the EU if they can.
If they can't - which they concluded - the most reasonably deduced consequential is not that they stop at that. It's that they widen the sites to include the UK. 5.4 covers this.
And as confirmation of this understanding 5.5 says that AZ must inform the EC of the sites they are in practice going to use - on a best efforts basis - to fill the EC's initial order. They did, and those sites include the ones in the UK.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose.
So says this barroom lawyer.
"And as confirmation of this understanding 5.5 says that AZ must inform the EC of the sites they are in practice going to use - on a best efforts basis - to fill the EC's initial order. They did, and those sites include the ones in the UK.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose."
How do you know this for sure. I've seen no statements from either party confirming this is the case. Pascal Soriot only said that AZ had the option of including UK manufacturing at some point in the future, which is consistent with section 5.4 and the EU hasn't released any paperwork related to notifications undertaken by AZ in relation to section 5.5 so there's no way to know who said what to who. You're making an assumption.
Ok, so I think my reading of 5.1/5.4 works anyway - or at least I don't see why it doesn't - but as regards 5.5, it's slightly more than an assumption on my part although I'm not 100% on it. Specifically, I recall a recent statement by UVDL that said: "AZ listed the UK sites as stipulated in the contract as being used for our initial order." Or words to that effect.
Comments
The Stansted 15 have today had their convictions overturned after they grounded a flight due to deport 60 criminals to Africa.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9201895/Stansted-15-protesters-stopped-deportation-flight-convictions-overturned.html
(Although you are right that then public will consider it to be vaccines administered and therefore that is indeed the de facto target)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9200655/Coronavirus-UK-Britons-Dubai-race-reach-home-todays-1pm-deadline.html
Obviously got plenty of invites to go yachting....
“People in France like to blame the government; in the present time they should really blame the firm."
Is really what this is about, the EU and its member states are trying to shift the blame for a rubbish vaccine strategy. In countries that have also had pretty rubbish virus containment strategies too so it's not like Australia or Japan who can wait it out a bit longer because not many are suffering from it.
Interestingly, the similar J&J vaccine single shot trial showed peak protection came after about seven weeks, and in the two shot trial they are using eight weeks between shots.
Should be a one-clause bill to amend the necessary legislation, if judges are going to decide that “protesting” inside an active aerodrome is in any way okay.
The point I'm making is that - contrary to various comments from others - I see no fatal contradiction between contract clauses 5.1 and 5.4. To me it makes perfect sense.
What 5.1 does is prioritize EU sites over UK sites for making the initial dose. It tells AZ to fill the order from within the EU if they can.
If they can't - which they concluded - the most reasonably deduced consequential is not that they stop at that. It's that they widen the sites to include the UK. 5.4 covers this.
And as confirmation of this understanding 5.5 says that AZ must inform the EC of the sites they are in practice going to use - on a best efforts basis - to fill the EC's initial order. They did, and those sites include the ones in the UK.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose.
So says this barroom lawyer.
Once the term was coming to a close, we simply didn't ask for an extension or renewal.
There was a very awkward conversation when the client called up and wondered if we had forgotten that the contract was due for renewal, and when could they expect us to file our request a renewal.
No, we said, we haven't forgotten, and, erm, how can we put this? Goodbye and God bless.
Any pharmaceutical firm must be wary of a client that does not appear to act in good faith. Does the EU suppose it will never again be in need of goodwill from AZ, or any large paharmaceutical company?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/29/tributes-to-slave-traders-and-colonialists-removed-across-uk
I want everyone vaccinated, perhaps most importantly the idiots.
The fact that 5.1 does not mention the UK is not relevant. It's not a problem. The UK sites ARE covered by the contractual obligations to the EC governing the EC initial dose."
How do you know this for sure. I've seen no statements from either party confirming this is the case. Pascal Soriot only said that AZ had the option of including UK manufacturing at some point in the future, which is consistent with section 5.4 and the EU hasn't released any paperwork related to notifications undertaken by AZ in relation to section 5.5 so there's no way to know who said what to who. You're making an assumption.
(Part of the problem being that the police are trained that it's safer to pull a gun than not, but this does nothing to increase trust in the police.)
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1355159093644828674?s=20
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1355165659420889089?s=20
AZ is being absolutely truthful in that warranty. If the warranty had said something like "AZ AB warrants that neither AZ AB, nor any other company in the AZ group of companies...…." then the Commission would have an argument, but that's not what the warranty says.
As a matter of contract law, the exact wording of warranties is very important to get right.
Without wishing to sound patronising, I think the idea of companies possessing legal personalities which are separate from other companies in the same group is something that people who are not familiar with company law find very hard to appreciate. That appears to include Ursula van Leyen and the other commissioners.
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1355151383771680769?s=20
- J&J have reported that the effectiveness of the single dose seems to increase steadily out to 49 days. That is encouraging since it suggests the same may be true of AZ, or at least that there's no reason to suppose it will drop off if the second dose is delayed.
- J&J also report good results in over-65s and in diverse ethnic groups, again suggesting that the AZ one (where data is a bit lacking for now) will work OK in these groups.
Of course this is somewhat speculative, but it's still encouraging.
Similar reviews have been commissioned by the SNP led Glasgow city council, which predates the Black Lives Matter protests. The Labour Welsh government identified 209 monuments, buildings or street names linked with slavery too.
Few if any Tory councils involved.
However the campaign group Save Our Statues said it had helped to gather 195,000 signatures over 40 different petitions that have been debated at council meetings, which helped lead to decisions to keep the statues of Sir Francis Drake in Plymouth and Clive of India in Shrewsbury.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/29/tributes-to-slave-traders-and-colonialists-removed-across-uk
You'd be laughed out of town if you demanded this in the commercial world. Appalling behaviour from UVDL. It's up to the UK Gov't and Astra whether or not they want our contract made public (And why should either party want to have it public), nothing at all to do with the EU.
Yes, okay, in that case you are quite right – apologies.
That's like The Sun telling the PM to calm down.
No idea what’s going on with them - must be pressure from member states
@MaxPB @RobD