Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I don't follow. The EU didn't contract the same order.

he's suggesting that the UK order put a ring around the supplies until its fulfilled, and that the EU is trying to muscle in on the guaranteed supplies for the UK.

thing is, we don't know what the contracts actually say. If AZ have signed contracts with both saying "we agree to supply [x] amount by [date]" as though they had unlimited supplies then maybe (I don't know contract law) the EU does have a right to some of the UKs quota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

This. The EU are trying to drag the UK into this, when it's absolutely nothing to do with us. AstraZeneca have made it clear that part of the reason UK is getting a smoother supply is because we got the deal done months in advance, allowing plenty of time to sort supply chain issues.

The EU dithered and delayed, and what they were warned might happen has happened.

I know this is probably complete separate to what’s actually in contracts etc, but the EU haven’t even approved it yet. If the U.K. has approved it and has sufficient supply and infrastructure to be delivering it, it makes perfect sense for AZ to be delivering what it promised to the U.K., rather than having vaccines sitting around while it waits for the EU to sort itself out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

AstraZeneca have made it clear that part of the reason UK is getting a smoother supply is because we got the deal done months in advance, allowing plenty of time to sort supply chain issues.

So all contracts can be reneged on simply by stating you've sold the product to someone else beforehand?

Terribly sorry old chap, you know those component you were absolutely relying on to arrive today for your business to function, well we weren't able to make enough of them and we actually promised them to someone else before you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

So all contracts can be reneged on simply by stating you've sold the product to someone else beforehand?

Terribly sorry old chap, you know those component you were absolutely relying on to arrive today for your business to function, well we weren't able to make enough of them and we actually promised them to someone else before you. 

No, they're likely not being reneged on. It sounds like they were based on "best efforts" rather than specific amounts by specific dates. Those "best efforts" made all the more difficult by the EU wasting 2 and a half months of time.

Edited by Mellotr0n
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It also comes down to the point if there are more vulnerable people in the continent that are in need of a vaccine isn’t there a morale duty to help those? I know they are in a different country but we are all humans so shouldn’t those vulnerable people be looked after. It was discussed a few days ago but I think it’s a valid discussion to be had. 

How do you know the vaccine would end up with vuberable people? Do these other countries have the capacity to roll them out? 

Would you rather the vaccine was used on someone or nobody as that is entirely possible in many of the countries with broken, or breaking governments. Simply sending a plane load of vaccine to Syria, Iraq or many other countries in the world means the vaccines will be able to be used - many countries simply don't have the mechanisms in place to do what we are doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

he's suggesting that the UK order put a ring around the supplies until its fulfilled, and that the EU is trying to muscle in on the guaranteed supplies for the UK.

thing is, we don't know what the contracts actually say. If AZ have signed contracts with both saying "we agree to supply [x] amount by [date]" as though they had unlimited supplies then maybe (I don't know contract law) the EU does have a right to some of the UKs quota.

Its not 100% clear what the UK contract is, but from reading between the lines, its x amount from the UK plant to a certain volume, in return for them investing in the vaccine and development as well as signing the contract early.  ( which despite what the EU says, is a perfectly valid commercial contract to make). 

 

I don't think any pharmeuctical companies have locked in dates for supplies. Its almost definitely all 'best efforts' as most of it isnt manufactured yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

he's suggesting that the UK order put a ring around the supplies until its fulfilled, and that the EU is trying to muscle in on the guaranteed supplies for the UK.

thing is, we don't know what the contracts actually say. If AZ have signed contracts with both saying "we agree to supply [x] amount by [date]" as though they had unlimited supplies then maybe (I don't know contract law) the EU does have a right to some of the UKs quota.

Perhaps is as simple as which contract has the smallest penalty clause. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mellotr0n said:

No, they're likely not being reneged on. It sounds like they were based on "best efforts" rather than specific amounts by specific dates. Those "best efforts" made all the more difficult by the EU wasting 2 and a half months of time.

If that's the case, then the EU don't have an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

How do you know the vaccine would end up with vuberable people? Do these other countries have the capacity to roll them out? 

Would you rather the vaccine was used on someone or nobody as that is entirely possible in many of the countries with broken, or breaking governments. Simply sending a plane load of vaccine to Syria, Iraq or many other countries in the world means the vaccines will be able to be used - many countries simply don't have the mechanisms in place to do what we are doing. 

Worth noting one of the big scandals in Spain locally at the moment seems to be majors and generals 'jumping the queue' for vaccines.

Once our vaccination programme is finished, im happy for extra doses to go elsewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Worth noting one of the big scandals in Spain locally at the moment seems to be majors and generals 'jumping the queue' for vaccines.

Once our vaccination programme is finished, im happy for extra doses to go elsewhere. 

Yep - it's not just limited to the developing work this sort of behaviour. I'm sure it's happening here too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

How do you know the vaccine would end up with vuberable people? Do these other countries have the capacity to roll them out? 

Would you rather the vaccine was used on someone or nobody as that is entirely possible in many of the countries with broken, or breaking governments. Simply sending a plane load of vaccine to Syria, Iraq or many other countries in the world means the vaccines will be able to be used - many countries simply don't have the mechanisms in place to do what we are doing

and that is a major problem. Developed nations should be stepping in here to assist. It's not a reason to do nothing or an excuse for avoiding equitable vaccine rollout.

None of us are safe until everyone is safe. 

Edited by HalfAnIdiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeyT said:

In more positive news (unless the EU blocks us getting it!)

 

Maybe one for @Toilet Duck...

Ignoring the ethics. Scientifically uould it be possible to create a version of the virus that is so transmissible it would become the dominant version that is resistant to mutation which the vaccines are effective against and release it - thus getting herd immunity? 

Effectively artificially speed up the evolution of the virus I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HalfAnIdiot said:

and that is a major problem. Developed nations should be stepping in here to assist. It's not a reason to do nothing or an answer excuse for avoiding equitable vaccine rollout.

None of are safe until everyone is safe. 

Should you not always put your life jacket on before helping others do the same?

At least that's what your told when you get on an aeroplane. 

🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Maybe one for @Toilet Duck...

Ignoring the ethics. Scientifically uould it be possible to create a version of the virus that is so transmissible it would become the dominant version that is resistant to mutation which the vaccines are effective against and release it - thus getting herd immunity? 

Effectively artificially speed up the evolution of the virus I guess. 

Good question, although I’m assuming that’s basically what a vaccine is? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

and that is a major problem. Developed nations should be stepping in here to assist. It's not a reason to do nothing or an answer excuse for avoiding equitable vaccine rollout.

None of are safe until everyone is safe. 

Yep there should come a time where the developed and vaccinated nations are mobilising to help other parts of the world distribute and administer the Vaccinations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Its not 100% clear what the UK contract is, but from reading between the lines, its x amount from the UK plant to a certain volume, in return for them investing in the vaccine and development as well as signing the contract early.  ( which despite what the EU says, is a perfectly valid commercial contract to make). 

I don't think any pharmeuctical companies have locked in dates for supplies. Its almost definitely all 'best efforts' as most of it isnt manufactured yet!

thing is, if EU contract includes the UK plants within it's 'best efforts' then (without further definition around that) it looks like the EU has a right to supplies from the UK.

If the contract with the UK contradicts the contract with the EU then it heads to court to get decided. I guess a contract signed first takes precedence, but I'd also guess a court would be sympathic towards the other contract which was signed in good faith by the EU.

(so my guess at an outcome would be that a court might order some goods the EUs way but not as much as they believe themselves entitled to)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Yep - it's not just limited to the developing work this sort of behaviour. I'm sure it's happening here too. 

Old Rupe somehow got himself to near the very front of the oldies queue. Strikingly, Liz and Phil got theirs a few weeks later. I think that shows who's running the country.

But generally I don't think there's much going to the privileged. I saw a 40 year old MP got jabbed the other day, but he was working as a volunteer at the hospital when a call was put out for people to use spare vaccine on. I've no problem with that.

 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Old Rupe somehow got himself to near the very front of the oldies queue. Strikingly, Liz and Phil got theirs a few weeks later. I think that shows who's running the country.

But generally I don't think there's much going to the privileged. I saw a 40 year old MP got jabbed the other day, but he was working as a volunteer at the hospital when a call was put out for people to use spare vaccine on. I've no problem with that.

 

In America, some reports of money talking in queue jumping. I notice quite a few in the senate and congress ( AOC) were very keen on getting the vaccine to 'encourage others'

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...