Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Nah im fine with us keeping to our contract as paid for and getting out of lockdown asap. Why shoudl we pay for the EU's faffing around for 2 months last year?

Absolutely this. The EU have fucked up massively here, and I can’t see why we should have to pay for their mistakes.

Our vaccine supplies are completely irrelevant to their situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, xxialac said:

Australia is set even later at December 2021.

I thought Brexit was sold to us as the same opportunities as Australia?

 

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Kind of suprised they don't start mass vaccinations before winter arrives there (even though can't really call it winter I guess)

December is the date they are predicted to achieve herd immunity. They have approved pfizer and are due to start vaccination in February. 

https://www.australia.gov.au/

I keep a close watch on developments in Australia as I hope to go there sometime this year.

 

Alan 

 

australia-s-covid-19-vaccine-national-roll-out-strategy.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if there are some wires crossed here?

The headlines are all "EU asks for UK's vaccines" but the detail is that they are saying they should have access to the vaccines being produced in the UK. That's a different thing. Just because the vaccines are being produced in the UK, doesn't mean they are "our" vaccines - they're AZ's vaccines and what they do with them is up to them. 

Given that some of our supply is currently coming from EU countries (though most is being made domestically) it's not unreasonable for the EU to source vaccine from UK factories at some point (I presume once the EU actually approves it, we'll no longer be importing it).

That is, of course, dependent on there being excess from the UK factories once they fulfill our order. But what is reasonable is if AZ are ahead of where they promised to be in, say, March, in terms of providing the UK vaccine, those orders *should* go to EU countries, and shouldn't just be used to deliver us extras.

Whereas it sounds like the EU have been told they have no access to any UK produced vaccine regardless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Nah im fine with us keeping to our contract as paid for and getting out of lockdown asap. Why shoudl we pay for the EU's faffing around for 2 months last year?

Or maybe the more difficult logistics of organising procurement for 27 different countries rather than 1?  The key point most seem to be missing is that while AZ have their HQ in the UK, they are a Swedish (EU) company too. The EU’s contract didn’t specify where they were to be supplied from (they could come from SII in India), it just specified how much they were supposed to supply. Of course we haven’t seen the contract and if there is a specific clause that states that EU supply will be from EU production only, then tough, the EU are stuck with it and should have negotiated a better contract, if not, then it’s entirely reasonable to put pressure on for the order to be fulfilled to “best effort”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will 

Just now, Toilet Duck said:

Or maybe the more difficult logistics of organising procurement for 27 different countries rather than 1?  The key point most seem to be missing is that while AZ have their HQ in the UK, they are a Swedish (EU) company too. The EU’s contract didn’t specify where they were to be supplied from (they could come from SII in India), it just specified how much they were supposed to supply. Of course we haven’t seen the contract and if there is a specific clause that states that EU supply will be from EU production only, then tough, the EU are stuck with it and should have negotiated a better contract, if not, then it’s entirely reasonable to put pressure on for the order to be fulfilled to “best effort”. 

Completely agree.

In some ways all this speculating is pointless as the truth will out soon and then we can have a more informed discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Or maybe the more difficult logistics of organising procurement for 27 different countries rather than 1?  The key point most seem to be missing is that while AZ have their HQ in the UK, they are a Swedish (EU) company too. The EU’s contract didn’t specify where they were to be supplied from (they could come from SII in India), it just specified how much they were supposed to supply. Of course we haven’t seen the contract and if there is a specific clause that states that EU supply will be from EU production only, then tough, the EU are stuck with it and should have negotiated a better contract, if not, then it’s entirely reasonable to put pressure on for the order to be fulfilled to “best effort”. 

I agree completely but technically it’s 4 countries here in the UK 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The headlines are all "EU asks for UK's vaccines" but the detail is that they are saying they should have access to the vaccines being produced in the UK. That's a different thing. Just because the vaccines are being produced in the UK, doesn't mean they are "our" vaccines - they're AZ's vaccines and what they do with them is up to them.

Technically, that may not be the case depending on the specific terms of the various contracts.

The final stage manufacturing (which is the part that's a bottleneck) is not being handled by AZ but by Wockhardt, who are doing so under direct contract to the UK Government who committed to providing the manufacturing capacity. Part of the terms of that deal means that UK gets first call up to a certain point. There's a similar deal in place for the Novavax manufacturing when that comes around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, zahidf said:

AZ said they signed the contract with UK first with certain commitments. If the EU has signed in June instead of taking till August...

Anyway, i dont see why the EU are asking AZN to breach their contract with us

But hey, its not approved yet. I guess AZN could withdraw their proposal from the EMA and supply us the overspill. 

Surely even if AZ agreed to send doses from the UK to the EU, I can't see the government letting them leave the country. I really can't see the Brexiteers rolling over and accepting that if the EU starts syphoning off our vaccine supplies. If the EU can introduce rules that they need to be alerted to any vaccine going to third countries, then I'm sure this pro-Brexit government would do a similar thing at the very least and would probably go further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tigger123 said:

Surely even if AZ agreed to send doses from the UK to the EU, I can't see the government letting them leave the country. I really can't see the Brexiteers rolling over and accepting that if the EU starts syphoning off our vaccine supplies. If the EU can introduce rules that they need to be alerted to any vaccine going to third countries, then I'm sure this pro-Brexit government would do a similar thing at the very least and would probably go further.

but then we won't get the pfizer ones that work on old people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Euphoricape said:

If schools do actually reopen on March 8th, when should we expect pubs and restaurants to be back open? Couple of weeks after or more likely April/May. Trying to gauge when I'm back to work..

I’d think a little while after, April at the earliest. They are going to go so slowly and rightfully so. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tigger123 said:

Surely even if AZ agreed to send doses from the UK to the EU, I can't see the government letting them leave the country. I really can't see the Brexiteers rolling over and accepting that if the EU starts syphoning off our vaccine supplies. If the EU can introduce rules that they need to be alerted to any vaccine going to third countries, then I'm sure this pro-Brexit government would do a similar thing at the very least and would probably go further.

Why if goods are located in the factory of a particular country, does that automatically make it 'that country's supplies'?

Who has the right to the goods is determined entirely by what is in the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

Why if goods are located in the factory of a particular country, does that automatically make it 'that country's supplies'?

Who has the right to the goods is determined entirely by what is in the contract.

Possession is nine tenths of the law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...