pig Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Peter Hun said: You are under the impression that AZN is the supplier and the UK government is just a customer. This is wrong. Hancock selected AZN to manufacture the vaccine for the UK government. Its detailed here. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-rejected-contracts-and-a-hollywood-movie-how-uk-struck-deal-to-guarantee-vaccine-supply-12204044 I'm not sure what difference that would make - a contract is a contract. And the article seems to be simply saying the UK's contract specifies that they get supplied first - which they would simply have paid for. In the event it looks like AZ had wiggle room in their contracts and opted for the commercially favourable option. Interesting article though, one nugget from the article was the key role of gambling - that may sound reckless but even removing the hindsight that we won the gamble, logically it can be argued we had no choice : ...The normal way of doing things would be to fix these issues once the vaccine was ready. But these weren't normal times - so the government determined to resolve them in advance... In March, the government bought two million antibody tests from two Chinese companies, paying for them up front. Boris Johnson promised that the upcoming shipment would be a "game changer". In reality, they turned out to be unusable. But the principle of taking a risk on potential new solutions before they were proven was, Mr Hancock decided, the right approach. That might lead to more mistakes - arguably, it did, most notably with the first contact tracing app - but he believed it would produce the best results overall. Edited January 31, 2021 by pig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryrot Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Cocha said: Same tired old tropes. I'm very happy to "own it", whatever that actually means and very happy I won't be needing to blame the EU for the UK's economy going forward. Its hard to argue with remainers who simply refuse to see the EU as it is - and as it openly intends itself to be: that is, "ever-closer union" and bringing more and more power to Brussels from the member states. There is an argument for an EU with one EU army, one EU tax/finance, one EU diplomatic service etc. over a collection of lesser states (like the USA). (Not something I want :)) But @IMHAL will neither argue for this nor admit it is the EU strategy and direction. Sad, really. Edited January 31, 2021 by dryrot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugsbody Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 11 minutes ago, dryrot said: ts hard to argue with remainers who simply refuse to see the EU as it is - and as it openly intends itself to be: that is, "ever-closer union" and bringing more and more power to Brussels from the member states. The member states control the EU, as we saw recently. Whatever happens with it will be what they want to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobodyInParticular Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 9 minutes ago, dryrot said: Its hard to argue with remainers who simply refuse to see the EU as it is No, it's remainers agreeing on this part 9 minutes ago, dryrot said: "ever-closer union" But don't see it as necessarily: 9 minutes ago, dryrot said: more power to Brussels from the member states. That's not a given. 9 minutes ago, dryrot said: There is an argument for an EU with one EU army, one EU tax/finance, one EU diplomatic service etc. over a collection of lesser states (like the USA). Yes, but that doesn't mean it is going to be the end result. 9 minutes ago, dryrot said: (Not something I want :)) But @IMHAL will neither argue for this nor admit it is the EU strategy and direction. Where do you think it is written that it is? 9 minutes ago, dryrot said: Sad, really. It's your opinion, and light on evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobodyInParticular Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 13 minutes ago, pig said: I'm not sure what difference that would make - a contract is a contract. Indeed. Sadly, this is what it will come down to. 13 minutes ago, pig said: But the principle of taking a risk on potential new solutions before they were proven was, Mr Hancock decided, the right approach. And he has been vindicated. 13 minutes ago, pig said: That might lead to more mistakes - arguably, it did, most notably with the first contact tracing app - but he believed it would produce the best results overall. I have to wonder how much of that was Hancock, how much Cummings (who he?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugsbody Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Bowing out for now. Conclusion for me is after the very frank discussions and a fair amount more digging, I have come round to having more sympathy for the UK's position than the EU. The UK appears to have taken more risk than the EU, invested more and started way earlier on the vaccine front. There should be a pay-off for that. I maintain that clause 5.4 and the list of approved sites for the EU initial doses is what is under dispute and I understand why the EU are dissatisfied that they're not being delivered doses from sites they believed would do so according to their contract. I also understand why they're irate that the UK will not allow delivery to the EU from those sites and can understand why they'd seek to ensure their citizens get doses from sites in the EU in preference, which I still see as the same as the UK policy. Having said all that, I think the UK have the better case here overall, if not contractually then because of their initial risks and steps to secure the vaccines. It is a real shame the EU have acted in this manner, particularly the Article 16 antics. They've damaged their reputation and set back a cause I believe in. Ciao for now. @14stFlyer @Peter Hun @Drat @Bob8 @NobodyInParticular @slawek @Riedquat etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drat Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 10 minutes ago, dugsbody said: Bowing out for now. Conclusion for me is after the very frank discussions and a fair amount more digging, I have come round to having more sympathy for the UK's position than the EU. The UK appears to have taken more risk than the EU, invested more and started way earlier on the vaccine front. There should be a pay-off for that. I maintain that clause 5.4 and the list of approved sites for the EU initial doses is what is under dispute and I understand why the EU are dissatisfied that they're not being delivered doses from sites they believed would do so according to their contract. I also understand why they're irate that the UK will not allow delivery to the EU from those sites and can understand why they'd seek to ensure their citizens get doses from sites in the EU in preference, which I still see as the same as the UK policy. Having said all that, I think the UK have the better case here overall, if not contractually then because of their initial risks and steps to secure the vaccines. It is a real shame the EU have acted in this manner, particularly the Article 16 antics. They've damaged their reputation and set back a cause I believe in. Ciao for now. @14stFlyer @Peter Hun @Drat @Bob8 @NobodyInParticular @slawek @Riedquat etc A very balanced view, salute. Let's hope the whole world gets vaccinated as soon as possible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobodyInParticular Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 13 minutes ago, dugsbody said: Bowing out for now. Conclusion for me is after the very frank discussions and a fair amount more digging, I have come round to having more sympathy for the UK's position than the EU. The UK appears to have taken more risk than the EU, invested more and started way earlier on the vaccine front. There should be a pay-off for that. I maintain that clause 5.4 and the list of approved sites for the EU initial doses is what is under dispute and I understand why the EU are dissatisfied that they're not being delivered doses from sites they believed would do so according to their contract. I also understand why they're irate that the UK will not allow delivery to the EU from those sites and can understand why they'd seek to ensure their citizens get doses from sites in the EU in preference, which I still see as the same as the UK policy. Having said all that, I think the UK have the better case here overall, if not contractually then because of their initial risks and steps to secure the vaccines. It is a real shame the EU have acted in this manner, particularly the Article 16 antics. They've damaged their reputation and set back a cause I believe in. Ciao for now. @14stFlyer @Peter Hun @Drat @Bob8 @NobodyInParticular @slawek @Riedquat etc I'd agree with most of that. Hancock made a good decision, and the EU has made itself look like asses. There's been a bit of vaccine nationalism on both sides. I pray for a compromise that saves lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Hun Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 1 hour ago, pig said: the commercially favourable option. The agreement AZN has with the various customers is not commercial. You keep referring to it as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHAL Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 1 hour ago, dryrot said: Its hard to argue with remainers who simply refuse to see the EU as it is - and as it openly intends itself to be: that is, "ever-closer union" and bringing more and more power to Brussels from the member states. There is an argument for an EU with one EU army, one EU tax/finance, one EU diplomatic service etc. over a collection of lesser states (like the USA). (Not something I want :)) But @IMHAL will neither argue for this nor admit it is the EU strategy and direction. Sad, really. I really don't know why you are getting your knickers in a twist. Sure there is an argument for this..but that is not the reality right now and nor is it a given that anything like this will happen. Just as there is no certainty that the UK will stay together or split up. You seem to think it's a given, well, it is not...and...in any case we had an opt out. It's that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Hun Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 1 hour ago, dugsbody said: Ciao for now. Bye, Its difficult to argue about all this for me too. I'd prefer to dwell on the positive that yield in all factories will go up and the vaccine roll out will rocket to billions by summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 1 hour ago, dryrot said: Its hard to argue with remainers who simply refuse to see the EU as it is - and as it openly intends itself to be: that is, "ever-closer union" and bringing more and more power to Brussels from the member states. There is an argument for an EU with one EU army, one EU tax/finance, one EU diplomatic service etc. over a collection of lesser states (like the USA). (Not something I want :)) But @IMHAL will neither argue for this nor admit it is the EU strategy and direction. Sad, really. Certainly could do - but I can't see any point us running into the corner and wetting our pants about it with the Russians. Just get stuck in and carve out our future as we want it FFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 52 minutes ago, Peter Hun said: The agreement AZN has with the various customers is not commercial. You keep referring to it as such. Yes AZN have pledged no profit - at least until the pandemic defined as over. Its literally commercial in that they have negotiated contracts and received bucket loads of public money. But I what mean is they will prioritise the most financially prudent distribution rather than what is necessarily best globally or for this or that party. Some more info here (a little out of date): https://www.ft.com/content/c474f9e1-8807-4e57-9c79-6f4af145b686 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtlessmanc Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 French media is reporting AZ has promised another 9M doses this quarter (UvdL has announced it) sound like they got a trade in exchange for the 3.5M Pfizer doses needed as second doses in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 11 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said: French media is reporting AZ has promised another 9M doses this quarter (UvdL has announced it) sound like they got a trade in exchange for the 3.5M Pfizer doses needed as second doses in the UK. Well, now the world pretty much seems united in the opinion that the EU got this one wrong, it's time to get down to the real business of vaccinating the most people as fast as possible. The UK appears at least on first observation to have secured an excess supply, and the EU appears to be struggling. Surely there is a solution that good friends and trading partners can come to here ? FTR I really do think we should be offering some of our dose to Spain and Portugal given the magnitude of the problems they are soon going to be having over there. Even if it delays UK doses somewhat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 4 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said: . Surely there is a solution that good friends and trading partners can come to here ? FTR I really do think we should be offering some of our dose to Spain and Portugal given the magnitude of the problems they are soon going to be having over there. Even if it delays UK doses somewhat. So, your pathological altruism would allow you to condemn British people to die, just to make you feel that you are a nice person? I wonder what a British person, in hospital on a ventilator and struggling to breathe would make of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzb Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said: They are my friends. Whatever I like. Yes but when you think about it, if you're not going to ask my question there's no point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 16 minutes ago, Byron said: So, your pathological altruism would allow you to condemn British people to die, just to make you feel that you are a nice person? I wonder what a British person, in hospital on a ventilator and struggling to breathe would make of you. It's not altruism. And sticking a jab in a person on a ventilator isn't going to do any good. There comes a point where continuing to vaccinate UK people does less and less good. That will co-incide with the vaccine production from all areas ramping up, supply that we have secured that may be unneccessary. Remember the IFR includes the very high risk groups, so when they are removed the IFR shrinks dramatically. Each corresponding vaccine in a vunerable cohort in another country will do progressively more and more good. It's the kind of think good friends and neighbours do. And is a type of the "soft power" that people keep highlighting as to why we should continue with foreign aid (which in itself surely is provided out of our budget that could be used on the NHS and therefore could be argued prioritises other countrys people over our own). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlooker Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 27 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said: It's not altruism. And sticking a jab in a person on a ventilator isn't going to do any good. There comes a point where continuing to vaccinate UK people does less and less good. That will co-incide with the vaccine production from all areas ramping up, supply that we have secured that may be unneccessary. Remember the IFR includes the very high risk groups, so when they are removed the IFR shrinks dramatically. Each corresponding vaccine in a vunerable cohort in another country will do progressively more and more good. It's the kind of think good friends and neighbours do. And is a type of the "soft power" that people keep highlighting as to why we should continue with foreign aid (which in itself surely is provided out of our budget that could be used on the NHS and therefore could be argued prioritises other countrys people over our own). If giving away vaccines delays reopening our UK society, getting people back to work, saving businesses and re-starting non Covid hospital operations, that must be bad surely. What do you say to the Brit facing bankruptcy, or untreated cancer? The EU should just be told to sort their own problems out themselves. In a nice way of course. Maybe a bit of help to Portugal, our oldest ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yelims Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Just going to leave this here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/parallel-export-and-hoarding-of-restricted-medicines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yelims Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 And also this, well done EU for taking care of its citizens and holding the balls of greedy pharma companies to the fire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 28 minutes ago, onlooker said: If giving away vaccines delays reopening our UK society, getting people back to work, saving businesses and re-starting non Covid hospital operations, that must be bad surely. What do you say to the Brit facing bankruptcy, or untreated cancer? The EU should just be told to sort their own problems out themselves. In a nice way of course. Maybe a bit of help to Portugal, our oldest ally. I can understand it is a strategy that not everyone would agree with, but as I pointed out in the foreign aid budget, these decisions are already made. Unless of course you believe that NHS treatment can't be improved. Also that at the moment, although we may be regarding the vaccine as a panacea, the actual effectiveness of it is yet to be demonstrated. It may end up only being effective in two doses, and therein lies the danger. However that is coupled with a short window of opportunity where it really could make the difference to the most vunerable in other countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlooker Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 3 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said: I can understand it is a strategy that not everyone would agree with, but as I pointed out in the foreign aid budget, these decisions are already made. Unless of course you believe that NHS treatment can't be improved. Also that at the moment, although we may be regarding the vaccine as a panacea, the actual effectiveness of it is yet to be demonstrated. It may end up only being effective in two doses, and therein lies the danger. However that is coupled with a short window of opportunity where it really could make the difference to the most vunerable in other countries. There is a strategic issue as well. Handing over UK jabs is tantamount to rewarding bad behaviour, and sets a dangerous precedent in potentially elevating the EU contract above the level of 'Best Efforts'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollover Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 1 hour ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said: It's not altruism. And sticking a jab in a person on a ventilator isn't going to do any good. There comes a point where continuing to vaccinate UK people does less and less good. That will co-incide with the vaccine production from all areas ramping up, supply that we have secured that may be unneccessary. Remember the IFR includes the very high risk groups, so when they are removed the IFR shrinks dramatically. Each corresponding vaccine in a vunerable cohort in another country will do progressively more and more good. It's the kind of think good friends and neighbours do. And is a type of the "soft power" that people keep highlighting as to why we should continue with foreign aid (which in itself surely is provided out of our budget that could be used on the NHS and therefore could be argued prioritises other countrys people over our own). I have to agree with you on this. Unfortunately for people on a ventilator is too late. The vaccine is/should be for someone who may get covid-19 in 2, 3, 4 ... months from now. Many selfish people thinking about now don't understand that vaccination is about the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 2 hours ago, Byron said: So, your pathological altruism would allow you to condemn British people to die, just to make you feel that you are a nice person? I wonder what a British person, in hospital on a ventilator and struggling to breathe would make of you. Whoah - might be worth you thinking this post through a bit more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.