There was a recurring Yoon meme about the regional papers such as the P&J and the Courier being much better at holding the Nats to account. It has presumably crawled away to die.
Still, they have Andrew Neil and GB news in the hammer the Nats corner now
As I said before, why is it only the SNP that has to be "held to account"? And not, say, Mr Johnson?
Hard to come back from drinking the PB Koolaid.
Why, oh why must the British media ask HMG stupid, irrelevant questions in this time of crisis?
also
Why, oh why aren’t the Scottish media asking the SG stupid, irrelevant questions in this time of crisis?
On topic: Just keep the damned thing simple. The NHS and your doctor know your age. They don't have databases of your profession. By the time we get through the priority groups, we should have lots of supply, and there's no point complicating the delivery by introducing criteria which can't be simply executed.
I've found that documentary on the Royal Family. Wasn't even aware of it till I saw a Crick tweet about it this morning. Watched by over 37 million in 1969 and never once mentioned by the BBC ! Anne and Charles being flung between ships at the moment.
Not as bad as It's a Royal Knockout.
That will definitely never be shown again!
Hah. So odd watching this, the world in 2019 feels closer to 1969 than it did to how it is now in 2021. I mean that's probably an overstatement but these Covid times do feel so so different to the before times. We'll get through this pandemic as we have every previous one in history but still.
Thanks, I hadn't appreciated the detail behind this story. Those numbers seem totally fine to publish, since they can be inferred from the vaccination numbers.
Posting this after having read last nights thread, and in defence of Kinabalu! Because what leap out, those quick to result to abuse and be rude shows a lot about the abusers and their argument really.
Hey? What are you doing down there? Have you tripped over? Here’s a hand.
this fundamental first building block to being able to coexist together. Why? Because time passes, the situation can be reversed, and remembered if the hand was there or not.
I know some of you are 100% convinced the hand wouldn’t be offered to us if the other way round. But that’s just emotional rambling not fact, so we are quite rightly not paying attention to that.
As Kin was saying, it’s a cold intellectual argument stripped of previous, present, or emotional attachments. Cashing in a bit at time of advantage, to strengthen us in those future needy moments is the difference between good government and bad government, just the same way as working for tomorrow’s headlines will eventually prove bad government. It’s simply wise to have mind to the future, today. Fix roof when sun is shining.
You can come to the same place as Kinabalu through emotional arguments as well, if you are living the Christian life for example where you never pass by on the other side of the road, even if the person in trouble is clearly of sect or Nation who slaughtered your family. Or even if the person in trouble is wealthy enough to have hired bodyguards if they weren’t so tight-fisted, so pass by because you convince yourself there are more deserving cases for your help.
Additionally, emotively, if we can transport PB back a mere 176 years, not a shred of doubt in my mind, not a boil mash or chip of doubt, the same nationalist reactionary posters on here would be posting we have legal watertight contracts on these potatoes, we are so clever to have seen the scarcity of potatoes coming and acted so wise and the quickest, and charity always begins at home.
Should we prioritise the EU, or Canada?
- Canada are receiving no vaccine this week. none. - The EU is getting reduced deliveries.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
37. So wise, for one so young.
That popping noise you heard was my head swelling.
I'd also thought you were older, but maybe that's just because my history teachers at school were generally old enough to be primary sources for the material they taught!
One of the surprising realisations of growing up is that many of the 'mature adult' figures you looked up to (or otherwise) when at school turn out to have been people in their 20s.
I only just realised I'm older than Sean Connery was in Dr No. Just feels weird - I dont know hold old I thought Bond was, but not 32.
I wish the EU's political bureaucrats would make up their mind. Are they trying to enforce their malign interpretation of their legal contract rights in order to appropriate production of AZ jabs from UK plants, or are they trying to throw undisputed legal contract rights out of the window in order to seize Pfizer jabs destined for the UK from EU-based Pfizer plants? They seem to want both. Saying that they want to have their cake and eat it is too generous to them, because it's not even their cake.
And let's bear in mind that neither set of jabs would be there to seize in the first place if the UK had not acted many months before the EU and born the risks to get production off the ground.
They are playing politics, it is not about the law. It is pressure on the drug companies, and to show their public "something is being done". Politicians playing politics is hardly surprising, its generally bad and unhelpful as it is in this case, but if the tables were flipped our government would be doing the same.
The tables were flipped in December, both AZ and Pfizer failed to supply anywhere near their original contracted supply estimates. Pfizer missed by 60% and AZ missed 80%. I'm sure Novavax will miss by somewhere around that number too initially.
You know what we did? The government asked AZ what they needed to get things moving and arranged for the Wrexham bottling plant to increase capacity earlier and helped fly over the remaining doses from the failed German bottling plant to Wales. No law suits, no "unity", no threatening export bans unless Pfizer made up for the difference with EU destined supply.
The EU is acting like Dick Turpin thinking it can steal supplies destined for other countries. It can't and it needs to work with AZ, Pfizer and others to see what expertise it can offer to help with the bottlenecks. Not raid production plants hoping to catch boxes with Union Flags on them.
In addition, we can see the same failed strategy popping up again, Novavax just reported a 90% efficacy vaccine that works against the major variant sweeping through Europe (Kent COVID). Where is the EU purchase agreement, they make it in Czechia for export to RoW clients at the moment and over here for the UK government. Why hasn't the EU signed any kind of contract for 200m doses of it? Where are the production subsidies to get the Czechia manufacturing up to speed faster and capacity ramped up for 30m doses per month to supply the people of Europe etc...
Sorry for the rant, I'm just annoyed at the idea that we would do the same. We didn't.
I wish the EU's political bureaucrats would make up their mind. Are they trying to enforce their malign interpretation of their legal contract rights in order to appropriate production of AZ jabs from UK plants, or are they trying to throw undisputed legal contract rights out of the window in order to seize Pfizer jabs destined for the UK from EU-based Pfizer plants? They seem to want both. Saying that they want to have their cake and eat it is too generous to them, because it's not even their cake.
And let's bear in mind that neither set of jabs would be there to seize in the first place if the UK had not acted many months before the EU and born the risks to get production off the ground.
They are playing politics, it is not about the law. It is pressure on the drug companies, and to show their public "something is being done". Politicians playing politics is hardly surprising, its generally bad and unhelpful as it is in this case, but if the tables were flipped our government would be doing the same.
Yes, of course they are playing politics and it's a fig leaf. That's the point - the contradiction in their positions re AZ and Pfizer exposes it very clearly. Moreover it just confirms that while they claim to be an organisation which supposedly sets such a high premium on following the legal letter of rules and treaties, in practice they drop that when it suits them to do the opposite.
So much for legal obligation, international law, treaties and all that. Let's just accept that in practice we're back to a medieval international order where outcomes depend on which party has seized the King's daughter and is holding her as hostage to good conduct.
Agreed, to an extent its always been like that, but Trump and Brexit have certainly moved us backwards in terms of western international co-operation, and will do even many years post Trump and Brexit as trust and confidence have been reduced significantly in many key international relationships.
It seems some people think that a 30 year old teacher should not be vaccinated before a 45 year old project manager at all costs.
My argument is that once the very high risk have been vaccinated, teachers should absolutely be prioritised along with police and bus drivers and supermarket workers etc. To get the best bang for our buck when it comes to herd immunity.
I don’t think by the time we get to that stage that’s going to be the issue. Once they start on the under 50s, it will probably be by health status, not age.
For example, I am 37 and have no underlying health conditions. OK, so I teach in a school and that’s a high risk environment. But should I therefore be vaccinated ahead of my sister, aged 39 and with two school age children, who is an asthmatic as well as obese from the side effects of various drugs she has to take for a mobility issue?
I know who I think is more at risk in the event of schools going back. And it isn’t me.
37. So wise, for one so young.
That popping noise you heard was my head swelling.
I'd also thought you were older, but maybe that's just because my history teachers at school were generally old enough to be primary sources for the material they taught!
Isn't it that when we were at school teachers seemed ancient?
And why does everyone hate teachers?
Because we hated them when we were at school.
Too many socialists in teaching, not enough balance imho
I really dont think that's it. How many teachers even get the chance to push socialism in their classes even if they wanted and how many pupils are relaying the detail back on that to concern parents?
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
I wish the EU's political bureaucrats would make up their mind. Are they trying to enforce their malign interpretation of their legal contract rights in order to appropriate production of AZ jabs from UK plants, or are they trying to throw undisputed legal contract rights out of the window in order to seize Pfizer jabs destined for the UK from EU-based Pfizer plants? They seem to want both. Saying that they want to have their cake and eat it is too generous to them, because it's not even their cake.
And let's bear in mind that neither set of jabs would be there to seize in the first place if the UK had not acted many months before the EU and born the risks to get production off the ground.
They are playing politics, it is not about the law. It is pressure on the drug companies, and to show their public "something is being done". Politicians playing politics is hardly surprising, its generally bad and unhelpful as it is in this case, but if the tables were flipped our government would be doing the same.
Yes, of course they are playing politics and it's a fig leaf. That's the point - the contradiction in their positions re AZ and Pfizer exposes it very clearly. Moreover it just confirms that while they claim to be an organisation which supposedly sets such a high premium on following the legal letter of rules and treaties, in practice they drop that when it suits them to do the opposite.
So much for legal obligation, international law, treaties and all that. Let's just accept that in practice we're back to a medieval international order where outcomes depend on which party has seized the King's daughter and is holding her as hostage to good conduct.
Agreed, to an extent its always been like that, but Trump and Brexit have certainly moved us backwards in terms of western international co-operation, and will do even many years post Trump and Brexit as trust and confidence have been reduced significantly in many key international relationships.
The EU had little or nothing to do with international cooperation. It was - and still is - all about creating a single European state. It is 19th century imperialist thinking which is why it is failing in the 21st century.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
According to one of the posts underneath DAG's blog (my almost entire source of enquiry to date), the place of manufacturing would not be seen as relevant in court.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
Yes there is, just ignore the EU, let them shout and scream for a bit and wait for them to calm down. Ultimately this is the result from EU underinvestment in vaccine procurement, they chose a very poor strategy of not subsidising production and now they need to deal with it. There's nothing more to it than that. This political posturing from them is pissing into the wind and the threat of an export ban is a joke as it would come with a gigantic international retaliation that means everyone loses.
I've found that documentary on the Royal Family. Wasn't even aware of it till I saw a Crick tweet about it this morning. Watched by over 37 million in 1969 and never once mentioned by the BBC ! Anne and Charles being flung between ships at the moment.
EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war".
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."
I wish the EU's political bureaucrats would make up their mind. Are they trying to enforce their malign interpretation of their legal contract rights in order to appropriate production of AZ jabs from UK plants, or are they trying to throw undisputed legal contract rights out of the window in order to seize Pfizer jabs destined for the UK from EU-based Pfizer plants? They seem to want both. Saying that they want to have their cake and eat it is too generous to them, because it's not even their cake.
And let's bear in mind that neither set of jabs would be there to seize in the first place if the UK had not acted many months before the EU and born the risks to get production off the ground.
They are playing politics, it is not about the law. It is pressure on the drug companies, and to show their public "something is being done". Politicians playing politics is hardly surprising, its generally bad and unhelpful as it is in this case, but if the tables were flipped our government would be doing the same.
The tables were flipped in December, both AZ and Pfizer failed to supply anywhere near their original contracted supply estimates. Pfizer missed by 60% and AZ missed 80%. I'm sure Novavax will miss by somewhere around that number too initially.
You know what we did? The government asked AZ what they needed to get things moving and arranged for the Wrexham bottling plant to increase capacity earlier and helped fly over the remaining doses from the failed German bottling plant to Wales. No law suits, no "unity", no threatening export bans unless Pfizer made up for the difference with EU destined supply.
The EU is acting like Dick Turpin thinking it can steal supplies destined for other countries. It can't and it needs to work with AZ, Pfizer and others to see what expertise it can offer to help with the bottlenecks. Not raid production plants hoping to catch boxes with Union Flags on them.
In addition, we can see the same failed strategy popping up again, Novavax just reported a 90% efficacy vaccine that works against the major variant sweeping through Europe (Kent COVID). Where is the EU purchase agreement, they make it in Czechia for export to RoW clients at the moment and over here for the UK government. Why hasn't the EU signed any kind of contract for 200m doses of it? Where are the production subsidies to get the Czechia manufacturing up to speed faster and capacity ramped up for 30m doses per month to supply the people of Europe etc...
Sorry for the rant, I'm just annoyed at the idea that we would do the same. We didn't.
The tables werent turned in December, the consensus was the UK was ahead of the vaccination numbers game back then. Tables turned would be UK on track for vaccination 6 months after the EU and the govt under enormous political pressure to do something about it - it is absurd to suggest that was the case in December here.
Yes the EU have made a series of big errors, and are continuing to do so, and the UK have made some good and early calls - that should not stop objective analysis of what is happening and have it replaced with a constant narrative of EU terrible and duplicitous and UK great and principled, the world is not so simple.
John Smith is missing from that table. He should be top because he never became unpopular.
True, Smith would certainly have won in 1997 though in government he might have become unpopular earlier than Blair did ie in his first term. He being more centre left than Blair who governed from 1997 to 2001 from the dead centre.
Starmer ideologically is closer to Smith or Wilson than Blair
Posting this after having read last nights thread, and in defence of Kinabalu! Because what leap out, those quick to result to abuse and be rude shows a lot about the abusers and their argument really.
Hey? What are you doing down there? Have you tripped over? Here’s a hand.
this fundamental first building block to being able to coexist together. Why? Because time passes, the situation can be reversed, and remembered if the hand was there or not.
I know some of you are 100% convinced the hand wouldn’t be offered to us if the other way round. But that’s just emotional rambling not fact, so we are quite rightly not paying attention to that.
As Kin was saying, it’s a cold intellectual argument stripped of previous, present, or emotional attachments. Cashing in a bit at time of advantage, to strengthen us in those future needy moments is the difference between good government and bad government, just the same way as working for tomorrow’s headlines will eventually prove bad government. It’s simply wise to have mind to the future, today. Fix roof when sun is shining.
You can come to the same place as Kinabalu through emotional arguments as well, if you are living the Christian life for example where you never pass by on the other side of the road, even if the person in trouble is clearly of sect or Nation who slaughtered your family. Or even if the person in trouble is wealthy enough to have hired bodyguards if they weren’t so tight-fisted, so pass by because you convince yourself there are more deserving cases for your help.
Additionally, emotively, if we can transport PB back a mere 176 years, not a shred of doubt in my mind, not a boil mash or chip of doubt, the same nationalist reactionary posters on here would be posting we have legal watertight contracts on these potatoes, we are so clever to have seen the scarcity of potatoes coming and acted so wise and the quickest, and charity always begins at home.
Nope, it is the UK which is offering a helping hand - to those countries who really need it. The EU is instead acting like a spoilt brat who chose not to spend their pocket money on sweets and now wants the other kids sweets instead. Meanwhile the kid who bought sweets is happy to dole them out to those who had no money to buy them in the first place.
Boris Johnson had almost nothing left in his armoury to combat the Covid Pandemic. He had not had a good Coronavirus crisis.He had bet the house and all that was left was one solitary blue chip, and he bet that chip on a vaccination. He won, he bet his winnings on another, he won, and another, he couldn't lose. It was probably more through, last throw of the dice luck, than judgement, but he won nonetheless.
He who dares wins, Rodney. He who dares wins.
had little to do with the government.
Bingham in the December VTF report complimented Civil Servants and Ministers for taking tough decisions at pace - so it had plenty to do with the government.
Yes, in the full interview she does spell out other key factors - such as the UK ability to recruit volunteers for the vaccine trials exceptionally quickly because of the NHS database launched early in 2020 which signed up hundreds and thousands of people, and the support and co-ordination role that her task force has played since last summer.
But this is also a direct quote: "actually, the work to scale up the manufacturing had started months before that ([the contract negotiations]), and it is that early work [in February] that was done by the industry - voluntarily, not based on contracts or requirements - but a voluntary coalition of the different companies; that is what has made ultimately the difference as to why we are so far ahead on manufacturing"
Had vaccination gone wrong the government would have been widely criticised, doubly so if they tried to blame industry. To say they had no/little role isn't really a fair assessment.
For sure, in politics the government is always to blame.
It isn't yet clear how people will come to weigh the outcomes. Being a few months ahead on vaccinations is a big plus point - but on most other metrics, we're among the worst in the world (to date). And the other long-term consequences have yet to come clear.
Most people can also see that almost everything Boris has touched personally hasn't been handled well. His luck usually depends on being able to take credit for the work of others.
The EU's performance on infections and deaths from the spring onwards may well benefit - as last year - when the warm weather returns and social life in much of Europe moves outdoors once again, even if the rate of vaccination is slower than here. In 2020, from March/early April onwards the improvements in Europe were dramatic, without a single vaccination.
Yes, while government, industry and the NHS have done very well in procuring and distributing the vaccines, this will only go some way towards mitigating the disastrous policy decisions with regard to curbing the spread of the virus. In the end, what will matter is how many people died, and that is the figure on which the government will be judged.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
According to one of the posts underneath DAG's blog (my almost entire source of enquiry to date), the place of manufacturing would not be seen as relevant in court.
But I'm sure it won't go to court.
Also which Court, surely?
AZ-EU contract is allegedly under Belgian Law, the country of Poirot.
EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war".
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."
Patience of saints from AZ executives this morning. They must be thinking F. EU, there’s seven billion more customers out there who don’t demand rock bottom price then scream at us in public over the delivery schedule.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
Yes there is, just ignore the EU, let them shout and scream for a bit and wait for them to calm down. Ultimately this is the result from EU underinvestment in vaccine procurement, they chose a very poor strategy of not subsidising production and now they need to deal with it. There's nothing more to it than that. This political posturing from them is pissing into the wind and the threat of an export ban is a joke as it would come with a gigantic international retaliation that means everyone loses.
I don't get it. Or your point.
The EU, on behalf of its Member States, agreed a contract to buy some vaccines from AZN. They are now arguing over whether AZN is in breach of that contract. There is merit in both sides according to what we know (as discussed above).
How is that proof if proof be needed of the sclerotic nature of the EU which has underinvested in vaccine programmes?
Plus of course "the EU" doesn't invest in vaccine programmes, its Member States do.
EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war".
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."
That's darkly funny. The good news is that by coordinating the contracts they've avoided a vaccine war between the EU countries and aren't squabbling amongst themselves. The bad news is that by coordinating the contracts they don't actually have the vaccines to squabble over.
I wish the EU's political bureaucrats would make up their mind. Are they trying to enforce their malign interpretation of their legal contract rights in order to appropriate production of AZ jabs from UK plants, or are they trying to throw undisputed legal contract rights out of the window in order to seize Pfizer jabs destined for the UK from EU-based Pfizer plants? They seem to want both. Saying that they want to have their cake and eat it is too generous to them, because it's not even their cake.
And let's bear in mind that neither set of jabs would be there to seize in the first place if the UK had not acted many months before the EU and born the risks to get production off the ground.
They are playing politics, it is not about the law. It is pressure on the drug companies, and to show their public "something is being done". Politicians playing politics is hardly surprising, its generally bad and unhelpful as it is in this case, but if the tables were flipped our government would be doing the same.
The tables were flipped in December, both AZ and Pfizer failed to supply anywhere near their original contracted supply estimates. Pfizer missed by 60% and AZ missed 80%. I'm sure Novavax will miss by somewhere around that number too initially.
You know what we did? The government asked AZ what they needed to get things moving and arranged for the Wrexham bottling plant to increase capacity earlier and helped fly over the remaining doses from the failed German bottling plant to Wales. No law suits, no "unity", no threatening export bans unless Pfizer made up for the difference with EU destined supply.
The EU is acting like Dick Turpin thinking it can steal supplies destined for other countries. It can't and it needs to work with AZ, Pfizer and others to see what expertise it can offer to help with the bottlenecks. Not raid production plants hoping to catch boxes with Union Flags on them.
In addition, we can see the same failed strategy popping up again, Novavax just reported a 90% efficacy vaccine that works against the major variant sweeping through Europe (Kent COVID). Where is the EU purchase agreement, they make it in Czechia for export to RoW clients at the moment and over here for the UK government. Why hasn't the EU signed any kind of contract for 200m doses of it? Where are the production subsidies to get the Czechia manufacturing up to speed faster and capacity ramped up for 30m doses per month to supply the people of Europe etc...
Sorry for the rant, I'm just annoyed at the idea that we would do the same. We didn't.
The tables werent turned in December, the consensus was the UK was ahead of the vaccination numbers game back then. Tables turned would be UK on track for vaccination 6 months after the EU and the govt under enormous political pressure to do something about it - it is absurd to suggest that was the case in December here.
Yes the EU have made a series of big errors, and are continuing to do so, and the UK have made some good and early calls - that should not stop objective analysis of what is happening and have it replaced with a constant narrative of EU terrible and duplicitous and UK great and principled, the world is not so simple.
Err, were you awake in December when we were doing 100k per day or less and the weekly updates were pathetic and all of the panic over only 500k doses being certified out of the 100m order? The tables were absolutely turned, the reason you don't remember properly is because the government worked with AZ to find a way through the difficulties and got stuff mostly back on track.
On topic, I think Mike is being a little unfair to say that the case for teachers to receive the vaccination earlier is "absolute nonsense".
It also isn't right to suggest the only target is to minimise overall deaths - if that were the case we'd have been continuously locked down since March. Another objective, for example, is to enable life to return to some kind of normality, and to reduce the negative impact on children's education.
People in their late 60s in reasonable health have a fairly low fatality rate. They are also fairly likely to be retired and, while staying at home is inconvenient as it is for us all, it does not have the economic consequences that it does for those in work. And there are jobs, like teaching, which are very much harder to do properly at home and which involve a lot of social contact.
Now I don't know whether the right answer is to vaccinate teachers at this stage, but it isn't "absolute nonsense" - it's a serious suggestion with genuine merits that deserves to be taken seriously and debated. Likewise, when they come to my age-group, there is a decent case to vaccinate those whose jobs involve more contact (factory and shop workers for example) even in younger groups before moving to people in jobs that are reasonably easy to do from home like me.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
Yes there is, just ignore the EU, let them shout and scream for a bit and wait for them to calm down. Ultimately this is the result from EU underinvestment in vaccine procurement, they chose a very poor strategy of not subsidising production and now they need to deal with it. There's nothing more to it than that. This political posturing from them is pissing into the wind and the threat of an export ban is a joke as it would come with a gigantic international retaliation that means everyone loses.
I don't get it. Or your point.
The EU, on behalf of its Member States, agreed a contract to buy some vaccines from AZN. They are now arguing over whether AZN is in breach of that contract. There is merit in both sides according to what we know (as discussed above).
How is that proof if proof be needed of the sclerotic nature of the EU which has underinvested in vaccine programmes?
Plus of course "the EU" doesn't invest in vaccine programmes, its Member States do.
One day, a long, long time from now we will be able to read pb and the word sclerotic will not appear all day.
The European Commission today makes the contract with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca public, sources confirm to the NOS. Parts of the contract will be blackened. "But it is in the interest of both parties to keep the disputed parts legible, in order to prove ourselves right," said correspondent Thomas Spekschoor."
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
Yes there is, just ignore the EU, let them shout and scream for a bit and wait for them to calm down. Ultimately this is the result from EU underinvestment in vaccine procurement, they chose a very poor strategy of not subsidising production and now they need to deal with it. There's nothing more to it than that. This political posturing from them is pissing into the wind and the threat of an export ban is a joke as it would come with a gigantic international retaliation that means everyone loses.
I don't get it. Or your point.
The EU, on behalf of its Member States, agreed a contract to buy some vaccines from AZN. They are now arguing over whether AZN is in breach of that contract. There is merit in both sides according to what we know (as discussed above).
How is that proof if proof be needed of the sclerotic nature of the EU which has underinvested in vaccine programmes?
Plus of course "the EU" doesn't invest in vaccine programmes, its Member States do.
In the big politico.eu story it was mentioned that the EU took direct control, using a rarely-used legal instrument that authorises it to make payments and enter into contracts for vaccine supplies.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
Yes there is, just ignore the EU, let them shout and scream for a bit and wait for them to calm down. Ultimately this is the result from EU underinvestment in vaccine procurement, they chose a very poor strategy of not subsidising production and now they need to deal with it. There's nothing more to it than that. This political posturing from them is pissing into the wind and the threat of an export ban is a joke as it would come with a gigantic international retaliation that means everyone loses.
I don't get it. Or your point.
The EU, on behalf of its Member States, agreed a contract to buy some vaccines from AZN. They are now arguing over whether AZN is in breach of that contract. There is merit in both sides according to what we know (as discussed above).
How is that proof if proof be needed of the sclerotic nature of the EU which has underinvested in vaccine programmes?
Plus of course "the EU" doesn't invest in vaccine programmes, its Member States do.
I would suggest you take up your argument with the FT who published the figures a couple of days ago showing that the UK and US had both invested 7 times more than the EU per capita in vaccine development.
John Smith is missing from that table. He should be top because he never became unpopular.
True, Smith would certainly have won in 1997 though in government he might have become unpopular earlier than Blair did ie in his first term. He being more centre left than Blair who governed from 1997 to 2001 from the dead centre.
Starmer ideologically is closer to Smith or Wilson than Blair
He might, it's unfortunately one of life's bitter pills that we'll never know. Personally I think that Smith would have been an excellent and popular PM. I agree re Starmer.
BTW, underneath your tweet from Britain Elects I found this:
EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war".
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."
Patience of saints from AZ executives this morning. They must be thinking F. EU, there’s seven billion more customers out there who don’t demand rock bottom price then scream at us in public over the delivery schedule.
The Commission have made that easy by essentially throwing a tantrum, instead of attempting to address the supply constraints.
The European Commission today makes the contract with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca public, sources confirm to the NOS. Parts of the contract will be blackened. "But it is in the interest of both parties to keep the disputed parts legible, in order to prove ourselves right," said correspondent Thomas Spekschoor."
So they've redacted the bits that are detrimental to their position?
I wish the EU's political bureaucrats would make up their mind. Are they trying to enforce their malign interpretation of their legal contract rights in order to appropriate production of AZ jabs from UK plants, or are they trying to throw undisputed legal contract rights out of the window in order to seize Pfizer jabs destined for the UK from EU-based Pfizer plants? They seem to want both. Saying that they want to have their cake and eat it is too generous to them, because it's not even their cake.
And let's bear in mind that neither set of jabs would be there to seize in the first place if the UK had not acted many months before the EU and born the risks to get production off the ground.
They are playing politics, it is not about the law. It is pressure on the drug companies, and to show their public "something is being done". Politicians playing politics is hardly surprising, its generally bad and unhelpful as it is in this case, but if the tables were flipped our government would be doing the same.
The tables were flipped in December, both AZ and Pfizer failed to supply anywhere near their original contracted supply estimates. Pfizer missed by 60% and AZ missed 80%. I'm sure Novavax will miss by somewhere around that number too initially.
You know what we did? The government asked AZ what they needed to get things moving and arranged for the Wrexham bottling plant to increase capacity earlier and helped fly over the remaining doses from the failed German bottling plant to Wales. No law suits, no "unity", no threatening export bans unless Pfizer made up for the difference with EU destined supply.
The EU is acting like Dick Turpin thinking it can steal supplies destined for other countries. It can't and it needs to work with AZ, Pfizer and others to see what expertise it can offer to help with the bottlenecks. Not raid production plants hoping to catch boxes with Union Flags on them.
In addition, we can see the same failed strategy popping up again, Novavax just reported a 90% efficacy vaccine that works against the major variant sweeping through Europe (Kent COVID). Where is the EU purchase agreement, they make it in Czechia for export to RoW clients at the moment and over here for the UK government. Why hasn't the EU signed any kind of contract for 200m doses of it? Where are the production subsidies to get the Czechia manufacturing up to speed faster and capacity ramped up for 30m doses per month to supply the people of Europe etc...
Sorry for the rant, I'm just annoyed at the idea that we would do the same. We didn't.
The tables werent turned in December, the consensus was the UK was ahead of the vaccination numbers game back then. Tables turned would be UK on track for vaccination 6 months after the EU and the govt under enormous political pressure to do something about it - it is absurd to suggest that was the case in December here.
Yes the EU have made a series of big errors, and are continuing to do so, and the UK have made some good and early calls - that should not stop objective analysis of what is happening and have it replaced with a constant narrative of EU terrible and duplicitous and UK great and principled, the world is not so simple.
Err, were you awake in December when we were doing 100k per day or less and the weekly updates were pathetic and all of the panic over only 500k doses being certified out of the 100m order? The tables were absolutely turned, the reason you don't remember properly is because the government worked with AZ to find a way through the difficulties and got stuff mostly back on track.
In December I was regularly discussing with my parents when they would get vaccinated, I thought mid January, they still havent been done yet, but must be close. Expectations were pretty good back then, most of my sources would have been from here, including yourself.
The European Commission today makes the contract with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca public, sources confirm to the NOS. Parts of the contract will be blackened. "But it is in the interest of both parties to keep the disputed parts legible, in order to prove ourselves right," said correspondent Thomas Spekschoor."
So they've redacted the bits that are detrimental to their position?
Wait and see. Lots of stuff is genuinely both commercially sensitive, and irrelevant to current issues.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
Yes there is, just ignore the EU, let them shout and scream for a bit and wait for them to calm down. Ultimately this is the result from EU underinvestment in vaccine procurement, they chose a very poor strategy of not subsidising production and now they need to deal with it. There's nothing more to it than that. This political posturing from them is pissing into the wind and the threat of an export ban is a joke as it would come with a gigantic international retaliation that means everyone loses.
I don't get it. Or your point.
The EU, on behalf of its Member States, agreed a contract to buy some vaccines from AZN. They are now arguing over whether AZN is in breach of that contract. There is merit in both sides according to what we know (as discussed above).
How is that proof if proof be needed of the sclerotic nature of the EU which has underinvested in vaccine programmes?
Plus of course "the EU" doesn't invest in vaccine programmes, its Member States do.
In the big politico.eu story it was mentioned that the EU took direct control, using a rarely-used legal instrument that authorises it to make payments and enter into contracts for vaccine supplies.
Yes I can see that - to secure the vaccines (or not!).
The EU can take this to the European Court if they like, I don't think they are going to - the court will find in favour of AZ I reckon.
The EU is frustrated it doesn't have us on a very tight lease on this, hence all the screaming, stamping and kicking; they haven't got anything else.
I think we should help though. We should send vaccine to Brussels in boxes stamped "UK Aid".
No, it would be morally wrong to help rich European countries ahead of the world's poor. Europe can subsidise its way out of trouble, they just don't want to pay for it. Why should we help someone who doesn't want to help themselves, we should help those who are unable to because they can't afford it. That means sending our spare capacity to Africa, South Asia and South America.
Fascinating chart, note how both Tory voters and Labour voters have now shifted left on economics but are authoritarian on social values, that is particularly true of Labour to Tory switchers in 2019.
Tory voters now significantly more economically left than Tory MPs and councillors and Labour voters now ssignificantly more authoritarian than Labour MPs and councillors.
That is good news for social democrats and rightwing populists, bad news for liberals and libertarians
Aside from my observation about Tory MPs above, you'd really need a scatter diagram showing the distribution before jumping to conclusions. A single dot showing the median for all voters is only part of the story.
Nonetheless, one obvious conclusion is that Tory MPs are so distant from the voters that they have a choice whether to prioritise compromising with the virus on social issues or economic issues.
My guess is that they'll choose to fight the culture war to win votes while implementing right-wing economic policies for their donors.
The European Commission today makes the contract with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca public, sources confirm to the NOS. Parts of the contract will be blackened. "But it is in the interest of both parties to keep the disputed parts legible, in order to prove ourselves right," said correspondent Thomas Spekschoor."
EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war".
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."
That's darkly funny. The good news is that by coordinating the contracts they've avoided a vaccine war between the EU countries and aren't squabbling amongst themselves. The bad news is that by coordinating the contracts they don't actually have the vaccines to squabble over.
Good news: the EU's bald men have agreed the rota for use of the comb....
The EU can take this to the European Court if they like, I don't think they are going to - the court will find in favour of AZ I reckon.
The EU is frustrated it doesn't have us on a very tight lease on this, hence all the screaming, stamping and kicking; they haven't got anything else.
I think we should help though. We should send vaccine to Brussels in boxes stamped "UK Aid".
Dublin, surely...
By the time this is all sorted, we'll be needing a new vaccine anyway.
I hope the government is negotiating with Novavax to produce a Saffer/Brazil variant vaccine sooner rather than later. We'll probably need that more than 60m extra doses of something we already have enough of.
No doubt the EU will be behind the curve on that too. I'm guessing that they will have to try and pivot to a new vaccine before they've got halfway with the old one.
That rejoin the EU campaign is going to have a tough uphill battle for the next generation after the EU is raterning their brand. You want to rejoin an organisation that was happy to kill your gran rather than admit they messed up will be the rebuttal.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
Yes there is, just ignore the EU, let them shout and scream for a bit and wait for them to calm down. Ultimately this is the result from EU underinvestment in vaccine procurement, they chose a very poor strategy of not subsidising production and now they need to deal with it. There's nothing more to it than that. This political posturing from them is pissing into the wind and the threat of an export ban is a joke as it would come with a gigantic international retaliation that means everyone loses.
I don't get it. Or your point.
The EU, on behalf of its Member States, agreed a contract to buy some vaccines from AZN. They are now arguing over whether AZN is in breach of that contract. There is merit in both sides according to what we know (as discussed above).
How is that proof if proof be needed of the sclerotic nature of the EU which has underinvested in vaccine programmes?
Plus of course "the EU" doesn't invest in vaccine programmes, its Member States do.
I would suggest you take up your argument with the FT who published the figures a couple of days ago showing that the UK and US had both invested 7 times more than the EU per capita in vaccine development.
Because the EU is not a state. Well of course it is an expansionary superstate determined to subordinate its members to the imperial yoke of oppression, but I digress.
The UK and US are sovereign states (always were, obvs) so this makes sense.
And if the EU were to invest in such things it would be with the express agreement of its individual, sovereign, democratically-elected Member States.
The EU can take this to the European Court if they like, I don't think they are going to - the court will find in favour of AZ I reckon.
The EU is frustrated it doesn't have us on a very tight lease on this, hence all the screaming, stamping and kicking; they haven't got anything else.
I think we should help though. We should send vaccine to Brussels in boxes stamped "UK Aid".
Dublin, surely...
By the time this is all sorted, we'll be needing a new vaccine anyway.
I hope the government is negotiating with Novavax to produce a Saffer-resistant vaccine sooner rather than later. We'll probably need that more than 60m extra doses of something we already have enough of.
No doubt the EU will be behind the curve on that too. I'm guessing that they will have to try and pivot to a new vaccine before they've got halfway with the old one.
Auszüge aus dem Vertrag zwischen der EU und Astra-Zeneca scheinen das zu bestätigen. Darin ist nach Angaben des Deutschlandfunks vereinbart, „dass anders als vom Unternehmen behauptet, auch zwei Werke in Großbritannien für die Produktion von Impfstoffen für die EU eingeplant sind“.
Astra-Zeneca versichert nach Angaben des Senders in dem Vertrag sogar, „dass der Konzern keine Abmachungen mit Dritten geschlossen“ habe, die der Auslieferung der ersten Impfstofftranchen an die EU entgegenstehen. Damit widerspreche der Vertrag den Aussagen des Astra-Zeneca-Chefs Pascal Soriot, der gesagt habe, dass die britischen Werke exklusiv für die Versorgung Großbritanniens mit Impfstoffen reserviert seien.
“Excerpts from the contract between the EU and Astra-Zeneca seem to confirm this. According to Deutschlandfunk, it is agreed "that, contrary to what the company claims, two plants in the UK are also planned for the production of vaccines for the EU".
According to the broadcaster, Astra-Zeneca even assures in the contract "that the group has not entered into any agreements with third parties" that stand in the way of the delivery of the first vaccine tranches to the EU. The contract thus contradicts statements by Astra-Zeneca chief executive Pascal Soriot, who had said that the British plants were reserved exclusively for the supply of vaccines to the UK.”
That rejoin the EU campaign is going to have a tough uphill battle for the next generation after the EU is raterning their brand. You want to rejoin an organisation that was happy to kill your gran rather than admit they messed up will be the rebuttal.
Quite.
I campaigned to remain in the EU and vigorously backed those wanting to halt Brexit up until 1st January last year.
I doubt I could possibly vote for the EU right now. Every negative adjective in the English language is appropriate.
I wish the EU's political bureaucrats would make up their mind. Are they trying to enforce their malign interpretation of their legal contract rights in order to appropriate production of AZ jabs from UK plants, or are they trying to throw undisputed legal contract rights out of the window in order to seize Pfizer jabs destined for the UK from EU-based Pfizer plants? They seem to want both. Saying that they want to have their cake and eat it is too generous to them, because it's not even their cake.
And let's bear in mind that neither set of jabs would be there to seize in the first place if the UK had not acted many months before the EU and born the risks to get production off the ground.
They are playing politics, it is not about the law. It is pressure on the drug companies, and to show their public "something is being done". Politicians playing politics is hardly surprising, its generally bad and unhelpful as it is in this case, but if the tables were flipped our government would be doing the same.
The tables were flipped in December, both AZ and Pfizer failed to supply anywhere near their original contracted supply estimates. Pfizer missed by 60% and AZ missed 80%. I'm sure Novavax will miss by somewhere around that number too initially.
You know what we did? The government asked AZ what they needed to get things moving and arranged for the Wrexham bottling plant to increase capacity earlier and helped fly over the remaining doses from the failed German bottling plant to Wales. No law suits, no "unity", no threatening export bans unless Pfizer made up for the difference with EU destined supply.
The EU is acting like Dick Turpin thinking it can steal supplies destined for other countries. It can't and it needs to work with AZ, Pfizer and others to see what expertise it can offer to help with the bottlenecks. Not raid production plants hoping to catch boxes with Union Flags on them.
In addition, we can see the same failed strategy popping up again, Novavax just reported a 90% efficacy vaccine that works against the major variant sweeping through Europe (Kent COVID). Where is the EU purchase agreement, they make it in Czechia for export to RoW clients at the moment and over here for the UK government. Why hasn't the EU signed any kind of contract for 200m doses of it? Where are the production subsidies to get the Czechia manufacturing up to speed faster and capacity ramped up for 30m doses per month to supply the people of Europe etc...
Sorry for the rant, I'm just annoyed at the idea that we would do the same. We didn't.
There's also the example of Moderna, where the EU were ahead of us in making an order, and so they're receiving supply now while we aren't.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
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.
The EU can take this to the European Court if they like, I don't think they are going to - the court will find in favour of AZ I reckon.
The EU is frustrated it doesn't have us on a very tight lease on this, hence all the screaming, stamping and kicking; they haven't got anything else.
I think we should help though. We should send vaccine to Brussels in boxes stamped "UK Aid".
Dublin, surely...
By the time this is all sorted, we'll be needing a new vaccine anyway.
I hope the government is negotiating with Novavax to produce a Saffer-resistant vaccine sooner rather than later. We'll probably need that more than 60m extra doses of something we already have enough of.
No doubt the EU will be behind the curve on that too. I'm guessing that they will have to try and pivot to a new vaccine before they've got halfway with the old one.
Novavax already working on...as is AZN
Yes. I wonder what point it is going to be needed though. It might well be before the existing contracts have been delivered.
I wonder if these contracts are for _a_ vaccine or the currently approved vaccine?
The EU can take this to the European Court if they like, I don't think they are going to - the court will find in favour of AZ I reckon.
Wouldn't they have to take it to the High Court in the UK?
Surely yes, if the issue is about sequestering output from plants located in the UK and operated by a company with its HQ here. Alternatively, if AZ caved, the UK government would seek a judgement here.
(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 issue.
One day, a long, long time from now we will be able to read pb and the word sclerotic will not appear all day.
Febrile should also be on the list.
Oh there are far worse offenders than that. In fact, when reserved for times such as right now, febrile is entirely appropriate.
Optics, push-back, connectivity ... lots of ghastly neologisms have found favour. I'm not against coining words but they need to describe something that existing ones don't.
EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders has warned of a "vaccine war".
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."
Patience of saints from AZ executives this morning. They must be thinking F. EU, there’s seven billion more customers out there who don’t demand rock bottom price then scream at us in public over the delivery schedule.
I get the anger at AZ, I really do, but they still have substantiated their allegations that AZ, perhaps in collusion with the UK, has acted in sinister fashion. That's just not on.
Their ability to criticise the tactics of populist leaders from the moral high ground has really taken a hit, as they are following the style exactly, up to blaming the UK for a vaccine war that they are provoking, by our mere existence outside their scheme.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
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.
Wasn't VdL saying "best efforts" didn't appear in the contract just this morning?
Posting this after having read last nights thread, and in defence of Kinabalu! Because what leap out, those quick to result to abuse and be rude shows a lot about the abusers and their argument really.
Hey? What are you doing down there? Have you tripped over? Here’s a hand.
this fundamental first building block to being able to coexist together. Why? Because time passes, the situation can be reversed, and remembered if the hand was there or not.
I know some of you are 100% convinced the hand wouldn’t be offered to us if the other way round. But that’s just emotional rambling not fact, so we are quite rightly not paying attention to that.
As Kin was saying, it’s a cold intellectual argument stripped of previous, present, or emotional attachments. Cashing in a bit at time of advantage, to strengthen us in those future needy moments is the difference between good government and bad government, just the same way as working for tomorrow’s headlines will eventually prove bad government. It’s simply wise to have mind to the future, today. Fix roof when sun is shining.
You can come to the same place as Kinabalu through emotional arguments as well, if you are living the Christian life for example where you never pass by on the other side of the road, even if the person in trouble is clearly of sect or Nation who slaughtered your family. Or even if the person in trouble is wealthy enough to have hired bodyguards if they weren’t so tight-fisted, so pass by because you convince yourself there are more deserving cases for your help.
Additionally, emotively, if we can transport PB back a mere 176 years, not a shred of doubt in my mind, not a boil mash or chip of doubt, the same nationalist reactionary posters on here would be posting we have legal watertight contracts on these potatoes, we are so clever to have seen the scarcity of potatoes coming and acted so wise and the quickest, and charity always begins at home.
- Sweetie. Very good post too. What I was doing - as you managed to detect - was counselling against a nationalistic, atomized, overly competitive approach to Covid vaccination. A collectivist mindset is better for this. It's not altruism. It's the quickest route to salvation. But there was much fog of war. Some of the more "passionate" Brexity posters took my lack of enthusiasm for the PB pile-on on the EU over vaccines to be tantamount to defending them and being in their corner on the AZ dispute. I wasn't and I'm not. The response was surprising - and tbh rather telling too in that it kind of proved the point I was making.
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
Yes there is, just ignore the EU, let them shout and scream for a bit and wait for them to calm down. Ultimately this is the result from EU underinvestment in vaccine procurement, they chose a very poor strategy of not subsidising production and now they need to deal with it. There's nothing more to it than that. This political posturing from them is pissing into the wind and the threat of an export ban is a joke as it would come with a gigantic international retaliation that means everyone loses.
I don't get it. Or your point.
The EU, on behalf of its Member States, agreed a contract to buy some vaccines from AZN. They are now arguing over whether AZN is in breach of that contract. There is merit in both sides according to what we know (as discussed above).
How is that proof if proof be needed of the sclerotic nature of the EU which has underinvested in vaccine programmes?
Plus of course "the EU" doesn't invest in vaccine programmes, its Member States do.
I would suggest you take up your argument with the FT who published the figures a couple of days ago showing that the UK and US had both invested 7 times more than the EU per capita in vaccine development.
Because the EU is not a state.
So you agree with the UK Gov not giving their ambassador equal weight with those of the member states then?
Beginning to see the issue here (h/t David Allen Green, obvs).
The issue is that as far as can be assumed, the agreement with the EU did have that best efforts clause but that related to manufacturing capacity. It likely made no mention of prioritisation of the product. It seems that AZN does have sufficient manufacturing capacity for the EU order in isolation.
Hence, the EU is behaving as though its agreement is the only one on the planet. AZN, meanwhile, probably realising that they didn't explicitly set out the allocation schedule, has said that the UK ordered first (which it did) and therefore the obligation is to the UK.
But the EU seemingly doesn't care about other contracts it cares about its own contract. AZN has the manufacturing ability hence the EU believes that as that is the only best efforts constraint, the EU should receive its full allocation.
I expect to repost this several times today so I shall label this v1.0.
But the best efforts definition used (according to DAG, in the other contract, so probably in this one too) explicitly did refer to commitments to others.
AZN's commitments to earlier contracts falls under that surely?
Well IANAL, obvs, but according to DAG that is the general description and then it is applied, specifically, to two scenarios which creates the actual obligation.
‘(i) to obtain EU marketing authorisation for the Product and (ii) to establish sufficient manufacturing capacities to enable the manufacturing and supply of the contractually agreed volumes of the Product to the participating Member States in accordance with the estimated delivery schedule set out below in Article I.11 once at least a conditional EU marketing authorisation has been granted.’
It is DAG's contention that the general description is without meaning or force unless it is further refined, as it is in 1.3 (i).
"sufficient" = "sufficient taking our other obligations into account."
DAG did a tweet in 2016 saying the NEC was going to win the challenge over eligibility to vote in the leadership elections, and (I paraphrase) "I know this because I am a Big Important Lawyer and the rest of you look like little ants to me." The NEC lost, the tweet got deleted. Ignore.
Well that is a bold claim to ignore his point. IANAL but do you/they really add phantom phrases to explicit contracts to suit their (client's) needs?
Well, you can't gloss everything in the contract. If the UK is entitled to 100 things a day and the EU also wants 100 things a day and I have one factory which can produce a maximum of 100 things a day, then on one view I have sufficient capacity to satisfy the EU and on another I haven't. So lawyers argue about which was really meant, and courts decide.
Yes absolutely - as I noted in my subsequent post. It is going to turn on exactly that.
AZN will say but we told you we would take into account other purchasers; and the EU will say we don't care about other purchasers, the "operative provision" relates only to manufacturing capacity alone.
I think it gets interesting if there is anything in the contract about where things will be manufactured - but for the moment it's an issue of "you can't have things that don't exist no matter how much you scream".
Furthermore, the EU claim to have been told "some of your vaccine will come from UK factories/you have a right to UK product"; were they also told in advance at the time "but the UK has bought up the initial batches, so you won't get UK stuff for ages"? Presumably AZ have seen both contracts, but the UK and EU haven't. And that's the basic plot structure for every farce ever written.
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
Yes there is, just ignore the EU, let them shout and scream for a bit and wait for them to calm down. Ultimately this is the result from EU underinvestment in vaccine procurement, they chose a very poor strategy of not subsidising production and now they need to deal with it. There's nothing more to it than that. This political posturing from them is pissing into the wind and the threat of an export ban is a joke as it would come with a gigantic international retaliation that means everyone loses.
I don't get it. Or your point.
The EU, on behalf of its Member States, agreed a contract to buy some vaccines from AZN. They are now arguing over whether AZN is in breach of that contract. There is merit in both sides according to what we know (as discussed above).
How is that proof if proof be needed of the sclerotic nature of the EU which has underinvested in vaccine programmes?
Plus of course "the EU" doesn't invest in vaccine programmes, its Member States do.
I would suggest you take up your argument with the FT who published the figures a couple of days ago showing that the UK and US had both invested 7 times more than the EU per capita in vaccine development.
Because the EU is not a state. Well of course it is an expansionary superstate determined to subordinate its members to the imperial yoke of oppression, but I digress.
The UK and US are sovereign states (always were, obvs) so this makes sense.
And if the EU were to invest in such things it would be with the express agreement of its individual, sovereign, democratically-elected Member States.
But the EU specifically took control of vaccine policy including spending on behalf of the member states. So your assertion is incorrect.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
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.
That black marker pen is hiding an awful lot more words than can fit under it if they think it gives them the ability to grab vaccines from the UK today.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
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.
That black marker pen is hiding an awful lot more words than can fit under it if they think it gives them the ability to grab vaccines from the UK today.
Yeah, would that be redacted if the date was in the past/near future?
One day, a long, long time from now we will be able to read pb and the word sclerotic will not appear all day.
The sclerotic/nimble dialectic is going to be with us for a very long time. It will make us yearn for the lost innocence of pb.com's âge d'or of endless J-class travel anecdotes.
Mr and Mrs Wicks need to alternative between the two of them who is doing their morning PE classes....
Longer nights than the first lockdown is a factor in that I reckon.
I am sure it is. I don't know what i would be doing if I hadn't built a home gym.... although seriously regretting it today as stupidly went for a virtual bike ride with the Brownlee brothers yesterday, not advisable.
The EU can take this to the European Court if they like, I don't think they are going to - the court will find in favour of AZ I reckon.
Wouldn't they have to take it to the High Court in the UK?
Surely yes, if the issue is about sequestering output from plants located in the UK and operated by a company with its HQ here. Alternatively, if AZ caved, the UK government would seek a judgement here.
Belgian law and jurisdiction clause in the contract. English courts usually honour such clauses.
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
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.
That black marker pen is hiding an awful lot more words than can fit under it if they think it gives them the ability to grab vaccines from the UK today.
The actual issue is in 5.4 "manufacturing sites within the EU which for the purpose of section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingdom".
WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below)
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.
5.4 clearly says that the EU would like vaccines to be produced within the EU (and will accept the UK as part of that) as much as possible. It does not say that the EU has preferential right to those vaccines produced in the UK.
The EU can take this to the European Court if they like, I don't think they are going to - the court will find in favour of AZ I reckon.
The EU is frustrated it doesn't have us on a very tight lease on this, hence all the screaming, stamping and kicking; they haven't got anything else.
I think we should help though. We should send vaccine to Brussels in boxes stamped "UK Aid".
No, it would be morally wrong to help rich European countries ahead of the world's poor. Europe can subsidise its way out of trouble, they just don't want to pay for it. Why should we help someone who doesn't want to help themselves, we should help those who are unable to because they can't afford it. That means sending our spare capacity to Africa, South Asia and South America.
Just a couple of boxes to cover jabs for the European Commission, and its staff, and with lots of press and cameras for media coverage.
Comments
Why, oh why must the British media ask HMG stupid, irrelevant questions in this time of crisis?
also
Why, oh why aren’t the Scottish media asking the SG stupid, irrelevant questions in this time of crisis?
- Canada are receiving no vaccine this week. none.
- The EU is getting reduced deliveries.
You know what we did? The government asked AZ what they needed to get things moving and arranged for the Wrexham bottling plant to increase capacity earlier and helped fly over the remaining doses from the failed German bottling plant to Wales. No law suits, no "unity", no threatening export bans unless Pfizer made up for the difference with EU destined supply.
The EU is acting like Dick Turpin thinking it can steal supplies destined for other countries. It can't and it needs to work with AZ, Pfizer and others to see what expertise it can offer to help with the bottlenecks. Not raid production plants hoping to catch boxes with Union Flags on them.
In addition, we can see the same failed strategy popping up again, Novavax just reported a 90% efficacy vaccine that works against the major variant sweeping through Europe (Kent COVID). Where is the EU purchase agreement, they make it in Czechia for export to RoW clients at the moment and over here for the UK government. Why hasn't the EU signed any kind of contract for 200m doses of it? Where are the production subsidies to get the Czechia manufacturing up to speed faster and capacity ramped up for 30m doses per month to supply the people of Europe etc...
Sorry for the rant, I'm just annoyed at the idea that we would do the same. We didn't.
Itd be more convincing about lecturers
‘Treacherous!’
Had AZ's ability to produce vaccine matched their ability to sell it, that would all be fine. It hasn't, which is why there's a problem. And no, there's no good way out of this.
But I'm sure it won't go to court.
Speaking on Belgian radio, he said: "The EU commission has pushed to co-ordinate the vaccines contracts on behalf of the 27 precisely to avoid a vaccines war between EU countries, but maybe the UK wants to start a vaccine war?
"Solidarity is an important principle of the EU. With Brexit, it's clear that the UK doesn't want to show solidarity with anyone."
BBC News - Covid: AstraZeneca contract must be published, says European Commission chief
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55852698
They really have lost their minds.
Yes the EU have made a series of big errors, and are continuing to do so, and the UK have made some good and early calls - that should not stop objective analysis of what is happening and have it replaced with a constant narrative of EU terrible and duplicitous and UK great and principled, the world is not so simple.
Starmer ideologically is closer to Smith or Wilson than Blair
BBC News - Covid: AstraZeneca contract must be published, says European Commission chief
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55852698
This is just false from the BBC...AZN have missed all their targets with us.
AZ-EU contract is allegedly under Belgian Law, the country of Poirot.
The EU, on behalf of its Member States, agreed a contract to buy some vaccines from AZN. They are now arguing over whether AZN is in breach of that contract. There is merit in both sides according to what we know (as discussed above).
How is that proof if proof be needed of the sclerotic nature of the EU which has underinvested in vaccine programmes?
Plus of course "the EU" doesn't invest in vaccine programmes, its Member States do.
It also isn't right to suggest the only target is to minimise overall deaths - if that were the case we'd have been continuously locked down since March. Another objective, for example, is to enable life to return to some kind of normality, and to reduce the negative impact on children's education.
People in their late 60s in reasonable health have a fairly low fatality rate. They are also fairly likely to be retired and, while staying at home is inconvenient as it is for us all, it does not have the economic consequences that it does for those in work. And there are jobs, like teaching, which are very much harder to do properly at home and which involve a lot of social contact.
Now I don't know whether the right answer is to vaccinate teachers at this stage, but it isn't "absolute nonsense" - it's a serious suggestion with genuine merits that deserves to be taken seriously and debated. Likewise, when they come to my age-group, there is a decent case to vaccinate those whose jobs involve more contact (factory and shop workers for example) even in younger groups before moving to people in jobs that are reasonably easy to do from home like me.
"Contract between EU and AstraZeneca public today
The European Commission today makes the contract with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca public, sources confirm to the NOS. Parts of the contract will be blackened. "But it is in the interest of both parties to keep the disputed parts legible, in order to prove ourselves right," said correspondent Thomas Spekschoor."
I think we should help though. We should send vaccine to Brussels in boxes stamped "UK Aid".
BTW, underneath your tweet from Britain Elects I found this:
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1354740294282080258
My guess is that they'll choose to fight the culture war to win votes while implementing right-wing economic policies for their donors.
https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1355106494031810560?s=20
Does anyone know what the UK's likely first 3 month shortfall will be?
By the time this is all sorted, we'll be needing a new vaccine anyway.
I hope the government is negotiating with Novavax to produce a Saffer/Brazil variant vaccine sooner rather than later. We'll probably need that more than 60m extra doses of something we already have enough of.
No doubt the EU will be behind the curve on that too. I'm guessing that they will have to try and pivot to a new vaccine before they've got halfway with the old one.
The UK and US are sovereign states (always were, obvs) so this makes sense.
And if the EU were to invest in such things it would be with the express agreement of its individual, sovereign, democratically-elected Member States.
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/astrazeneca-auszug-bestaetigt-lieferung-fuer-corona-impfstoff-17170885.html
Auszüge aus dem Vertrag zwischen der EU und Astra-Zeneca scheinen das zu bestätigen. Darin ist nach Angaben des Deutschlandfunks vereinbart, „dass anders als vom Unternehmen behauptet, auch zwei Werke in Großbritannien für die Produktion von Impfstoffen für die EU eingeplant sind“.
Astra-Zeneca versichert nach Angaben des Senders in dem Vertrag sogar, „dass der Konzern keine Abmachungen mit Dritten geschlossen“ habe, die der Auslieferung der ersten Impfstofftranchen an die EU entgegenstehen. Damit widerspreche der Vertrag den Aussagen des Astra-Zeneca-Chefs Pascal Soriot, der gesagt habe, dass die britischen Werke exklusiv für die Versorgung Großbritanniens mit Impfstoffen reserviert seien.
“Excerpts from the contract between the EU and Astra-Zeneca seem to confirm this. According to Deutschlandfunk, it is agreed "that, contrary to what the company claims, two plants in the UK are also planned for the production of vaccines for the EU".
According to the broadcaster, Astra-Zeneca even assures in the contract "that the group has not entered into any agreements with third parties" that stand in the way of the delivery of the first vaccine tranches to the EU. The contract thus contradicts statements by Astra-Zeneca chief executive Pascal Soriot, who had said that the British plants were reserved exclusively for the supply of vaccines to the UK.”
All hotting up.
I campaigned to remain in the EU and vigorously backed those wanting to halt Brexit up until 1st January last year.
I doubt I could possibly vote for the EU right now. Every negative adjective in the English language is appropriate.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/1923508/ppe-supply/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55843666
Mr and Mrs Wicks need to alternative between the two of them who is doing their morning PE classes....
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.
I wonder if these contracts are for _a_ vaccine or the currently approved vaccine?
(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 issue.
Interesting.
Optics, push-back, connectivity ... lots of ghastly neologisms have found favour. I'm not against coining words but they need to describe something that existing ones don't.
Their ability to criticise the tactics of populist leaders from the moral high ground has really taken a hit, as they are following the style exactly, up to blaming the UK for a vaccine war that they are provoking, by our mere existence outside their scheme.
Very good post too.
What I was doing - as you managed to detect - was counselling against a nationalistic, atomized, overly competitive approach to Covid vaccination. A collectivist mindset is better for this. It's not altruism. It's the quickest route to salvation.
But there was much fog of war.
Some of the more "passionate" Brexity posters took my lack of enthusiasm for the PB pile-on on the EU over vaccines to be tantamount to defending them and being in their corner on the AZ dispute. I wasn't and I'm not. The response was surprising - and tbh rather telling too in that it kind of proved the point I was making.
Excellent.
For the time being, the vaccine we have is good enough.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_302
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/867967/APA - AstraZeneca.pdf
The phrase "Best Reasonable Efforts" occurs 15 times in the document
It'd be a superb troll.