***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 6 ******
==============================================================
Ongoing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 1 Feb 21 at 10:33
|
THERMALLY STABLE, SELF-ADMINISTERED VACCINES IN CAPSULE FORM ARE THE FUTURE
The OraPro-COVID-19. A coronavirus vaccine that delivers double immunity via a capsule that may be delivered by post that can be swallowed. No needles, no doctors or nurses, no queues for a vaccine, no risk of cross infection.
iosbio.com/
iosbio.com/stabilitech-takes-next-step-in-race-for-a-vaccine-announces-biocell-as-manufacturer-for-orapro-covid-19/
This would appear to be a game changer.
|
One issue would be ethics in human trials. These have yet to happen and would involve placebos so there is an ethical conflict in ignoring proven alternatives (such as Astra Zeneca) and issuing placebos. l caught the end of a science item on Radio 4 making this point on a novel approach. I am not sure if it was referring to this product or not.
Maybe there is a way round it and if it was to succeed it would be, as you say, a game changer.
|
Chile just announced it will start administering the Sinovac vaccine from 3rd Feb and they have begun the exciting process of deciding how they will distribute the 83,000 doses they currently have. They insist they will imminently be receiving more. We shall see.
Of course one problem that Chile has, that hadn't occurred to me before, is that the State holds details of your age and address, and your employer has you occupation.
So people can be tracked by age or job, but there is no way of tracking people by health condition.
Consequently for the time being it is by job and age.
So if you're over 71, a key worker (including the police) then you're eligible through Feb.
Quite clearly their massive problem will be supply.
|
>>
>> So if you're over 71, a key worker (including the police) then you're eligible through
>> Feb.
>>
...I doubt many police in Chile survive to 71 still in the job....... ;-)
|
Mmm, judicious use of the word "or" may have helped.
I did notice a category included of "people key to the administration of the State". I rather suspect that will turn out to be politicians.
|
Mark said:
>I rather suspect that will turn out to be politicians.
That's exactly what the Labour Party's proposed Priority Vaccinations would allow. Vaccinations being given to Politicians and Civil Servants before the medically vulnerable.
Sooty said:
Well that escalated quickly.
The EU seem to be hell bent on destroying their pharma industry. Their bully-boy tactics of raiding facilities and threatening to block exports is going to make foreign companies think twice before they commit to any investment in Europe.
|
>> That's exactly what the Labour Party's proposed Priority Vaccinations would allow. Vaccinations being given to
>> Politicians and Civil Servants before the medically vulnerable.
Is there evidence for that assertion?
Angela Rayner got kebabbed on the Today programme this morning over advocating Teachers as a priority.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 28 Jan 21 at 21:09
|
>> Angela Rayner got kebabbed on the Today programme this morning over advocating Teachers as a
>> priority.
Did the shish hit the fan ?
|
>Is there evidence for that assertion?
Justin Madders tried to explain the policy and what they call 'key workers' on Politics Live a couple of days ago.
Rayner got skewered because their soundbite vaccine priority policy keeps changing and doesn't even make sense. As far as teachers go: a) what little evidence there is shows that teachers are not more vulnerable to either infection or death than us oldies. b) Schools were closed primarily to try and prevent the infection from being passed to families by usually asymptomatic kids. They were not closed to protect teachers as Labour is trying to tell us.
She also tried to claim that prioritising what they call 'key workers*' first wouldn't mean delaying shots for everyone else. How the £%^ she works that out I don't know.
* Key Worker - Definition volatile.
|
>> Rayner got skewered because their soundbite vaccine priority policy keeps changing and doesn't even make
>> sense. As far as teachers go: a) what little evidence there is shows that teachers
>> are not more vulnerable to either infection or death than us oldies. b) Schools were
>> closed primarily to try and prevent the infection from being passed to families by usually
>> asymptomatic kids. They were not closed to protect teachers as Labour is trying to tell
>> us.
I think the issue goes beyond the vulnerability of Teachers, though I'd not fancy teaching infants with no sense of social distancing as my son's partner does*. The other problem is trying to reduce the disruptions which occur when schools are in session because of the need to self isolate.
I've fallen over my own tongue enough times and in circumstances far less pressured than a Shadow Minister on national radio to understand how it happens but she allowed the question to become Rayner v Jonathan van Tam.
And then stuck to her guns.
*She's 25 and could probably shake it off but my son has Asthma and, outwith lockdown, she's got parents in their sixties and grandparents too.
|
>I think the issue goes beyond the vulnerability of Teachers, though I'd not fancy teaching
>infants with no sense of social distancing as my son's partner does*. The other problem is
>trying to reduce the disruptions which occur when schools are in session because of the need
>to self isolate.
Does that inconvenience justify shifting people who might be far more vulnerable further down the list? I think that the total came to around 6m people who qualified as 'key workers' when they added up everyone mentioned by Madden.
>I've fallen over my own tongue enough times and in circumstances far less pressured than a
>Shadow Minister on national radio to understand how it happens but she allowed the question
>to become Rayner v Jonathan van Tam.
She didn't fall over her own tongue. She just didn't have a clue how she could justify a policy made up on the hoof to get soundbites. Labour kept sniping that the Govt. should have followed scientific advice when it came to lockdown measures. Now that record's worn out and the needle is jumping they've dreamed up something else they thought would go down well with their members. The trouble is that they hadn't really thought it through and it's snowballed. All of a sudden when people point out the gaping holes in their policy they don't want to hear what the scientists are saying because it contradicts them.
>And then stuck to her guns.
When you're in the...
>*She's 25 and could probably shake it off but my son has Asthma and, outwith lockdown,
>she's got parents in their sixties and grandparents too.
Again. Should granny and grandad, who are more at risk of death, be pushed weeks further down the list because despite what Rayner says you can't let people jump the queue without making someone else wait longer?
|
The government has been pushing for people in certain jobs to get higher up the list such the police, well priti Patel anyway.
It's not just labour making an argument for it, there's discussion about in many places about who should go next.
|
There's definitely an argument for a limited number of people in certain jobs to be higher up the list and I doubt that many people would complain if valid reasons were presented. But not the spurious claptrap from Labour that would apply to 6 million people and go against the scientific recommendations they have been so vocal in damning the Govt. for delaying.
I'm no fan of BoJo but, with a few obvious exceptions, he hasn't made a pig's ear of handling the pandemic so far. If he'd done as Labour were demanding and thrown our lot in with the EU we'd be up the creek. Something Starmer is now trying to distance himself from.
|
One thing I haven't heard but am very curious about...
Have the top MP's had the jab??
I guess I could understand if they had as they are 'supposed' to be running the country.
Not sure how regular folk would feel if they had been given it ahead of the vulnerable.
I wonder if any of the reporters at the daily briefing would have the balls to ask...
|
|
There's been a few that have been volunteering at jab centres, not sure about the PM etc.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 10:59
|
>> There's definitely an argument for a limited number of people in certain jobs to be
>> higher up the list and I doubt that many people would complain if valid reasons
>> were presented. But not the spurious claptrap from Labour that would apply to 6 million
>> people and go against the scientific recommendations they have been so vocal in damning the
>> Govt. for delaying.
They wanted 6m people to go in the next group? Not seen that tbh, got a link?
I'm no fan of BoJo but, with a few obvious exceptions, he hasn't made a
>> pig's ear of handling the pandemic so far. If he'd done as Labour were demanding
>> and thrown our lot in with the EU we'd be up the creek. Something Starmer
>> is now trying to distance himself from.
>>
Standard politics I would think, SKS thought he saw an opening, took a chance, it didn't age well as they say.
|
It was on Politics Live a couple of days ago. Justin Madders was trying to explain the policy.
When the number of occupational fields that qualified people as 'key workers' was totted up it came to around 6m.
|
|
OK thanks.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 10:59
|
Lets get one thing straight. Teachers are not key workers. They are not vital to the immediate survival of the population.
Schools are know incubators and distributers of the virus. OK - Children may not get sick, but they are carriers, and while in school a vast support network of adults are required, Teachers, cleaners, school meals staff, support workers, not to mention gossipy mothers ( and grandparents) gathered round the school gates.
Which is why they are shut, and teachers are not exposed.
|
In a strict sense perhaps not, but I think that misses the wider point which isn't really about the teachers but the children that they teach.
Best place for kids to learn is in school. Vaccination of school staff is a means to an end not an end in itself. I think that gets forgotten in the discussion about who is a 'key worker' and who isn't.
|
>> In a strict sense perhaps not, but I think that misses the wider point which
>> isn't really about the teachers but the children that they teach.
>> Best place for kids to learn is in school. Vaccination of school staff is a
>> means to an end not an end in itself. I think that gets forgotten in
>> the discussion about who is a 'key worker' and who isn't.
No it doesn't. There is no "wider point" this is a short term crisis, not a long term plan. Teachers and pupils are a long term investment, not a short term issue. Missed teaching can be recovered over the longer term.
|
Its funny how this crisis has defined "key workers" and how its different from previous generations crisis.
For example - WW2 - Train Drivers & Miners - Key Workers
Coronavirus Crisis - Train drivers? nah not so, Delivery drivers? Yes Key workers.
|
You think schools should be shut until?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 11:00
|
>>
>> You think schools should be shut until?
>>
Scientific evidence suggests that they will not increase the R number - again. Boris is right, that is not a fixed date.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 09:37
|
|
How do we achieve that?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 11:00
|
>> How do we achieve that?
which, getting the evidence or getting the number down?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 11:00
|
|
Both.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 11:00
|
|
If you are going to be a silly sooty, I'm going to move on.
|
I'm not no, but if you've no answer or feel the need to move on then do so if you want to.
I guess we'll wait and see if school workers get bumped up the list or not.
|
>> No it doesn't. There is no "wider point" this is a short term crisis, not
>> a long term plan. Teachers and pupils are a long term investment, not a short
>> term issue. Missed teaching can be recovered over the longer term.
Tell that to my niece who missed half her GCSE year and is now doing a practical subject at college but by remote learning.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 10:01
|
>> Tell that to my niece who missed half her GCSE year and is now doing
>> a practical subject at college but by remote learning.
She probably understands what I wrote then, which is clearly more than her uncle did.
|
>> She probably understands what I wrote then, which is clearly more than her uncle did.
I seriously doubt your assertion about missed teaching, never mind that the wider school (or Uni) experience can be recovered over the longer term.
And my sister and her husband have good jobs and in his case a pension. They live in a four bed house, owned outright, where each 'child' has a study bedroom with decent computers and ultra fast broadband. If money is needed for books or materials then it's not a problem.
Meanwhile other kids are in cold damp flats with no space and limited facilities.........
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 10:41
|
>> Missed teaching can be recovered over the longer term.
>>
>> Tell that to my niece who missed half her GCSE year and is now doing
>> a practical subject at college but by remote learning.
>>
If everyone is in the same boat then she hasn't lost anything vis-a-vis her peers. They are ALL six months behind.
I am one of the few on this forum who went through WW11 while at school. Although I wasn't an adult, I can assure you there wasn't the moaning that is going on now. There was IIRC, a criminal offence on the statute book "spreading alarm and despondency".
|
>> I am one of the few on this forum who went through WW11 while at
>> school. Although I wasn't an adult, I can assure you there wasn't the moaning that
>> is going on now. There was IIRC, a criminal offence on the statute book "spreading
>> alarm and despondency".
>>
There was lots of moaning, people out on strike etc. I don't think they were out on strike because they were happy.
|
>> I am one of the few on this forum who went through WW11 while at
>> school. Although I wasn't an adult, I can assure you there wasn't the moaning that
>> is going on now. There was IIRC, a criminal offence on the statute book "spreading
>> alarm and despondency".
Those of us who followed you on had it worse, years and years of our predecessors going on and on about it.
|
Teachers, I think, have a skewed view of risk because they know of so many people because of the number of children they teach, and by association those children’s families. Inevitably therefore they hear / know of more cases and more deaths than most of us, and incorrectly think as a result they’re at higher risk. The ONS has found that there is no statistically increased risk from COVID if you’re a teacher. In part that’ll be because of some of them have spent much of last term and this working remotely, but there’s still a fair degree of classroom contact, at least based on the experiences of my teacher friends.
tinyurl.com/y34snevt
“ Rates of death involving COVID-19 in men and women who worked as teaching and educational professionals, such as secondary school teachers, were not statistically significantly raised when compared with the rates seen in the population among those of the same age and sex.”
To speak with many of them though, you’d think they’re were on the front line of a battlefield based on how they perceive the risk! Clearly if they’re clinically vulnerable that’s a different case and caution is definitely to be advised.
|
To speak with many of them though, you’d think they’re were on the front line
>> of a battlefield based on how they perceive the risk! Clearly if they’re clinically vulnerable
>> that’s a different case and caution is definitely to be advised.
>>
That is an issue I don't think is helping, the teachers union seems to be have been up in arms for the past 10 months.
|
>> tinyurl.com/y34snevt
That seems to be focussed on deaths. Given the age profile of the teaching profession they are mostly in the cohort who can survive infection but some will be very ill indeed. Others will develop 'long Covid' affecting their long term ability to return to work.
Any figures are also going to be skewed for the reason you suggest; there have only been about 12 weeks of all in/full time schooling since the first shutdown in March. There are numerous reports, beyond anecdote, of teachers and pupils being infected or having to self isolate with consequent disruption to their classes. Supply Teachers have been rushed off their feet but some have had to self isolate and are left with no income - or £75/week ESA.
The issue though is far wider than the risk of death or serious illness in the teaching profession. Zero's wild statement, unsupported by any evidence, that they will be OK and catch up is pure Mr Micawber. While it's true to say the whole year group are in the same boat that's not really true for the socio-economic reasons I outlined earlier. Of course there's always a risk of attainment gaps based on facilities for and support of homework etc. Covid has magnified that many times.
They're also not just competing with their own cohort, going forward into further education and perhaps more so the labour market the competition included those from the year above and, when normality returns, those behind.
Schools need to return asap and vaccination should be seen as part of a strategy not just special pleading for the teaching profession.
|
>> my son has Asthma and, outwith
>> lockdown,
>>
What does 'outwith' mean?
|
|
Outwith = outside of. Usage mostly Scottish, I believe/
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 12:42
|
SWMBO (who's CEV) has been given access to a website that allows her to book a jab (she's not received the call through formal means). I've tried it and I can receive one too. As it's now in the public domain I suspect it will soon be overwhelmed with applications.
We're not going to take advantage of it, but what would others have done?
|
>> SWMBO (who's CEV) has been given access to a website that allows her to book
>> a jab (she's not received the call through formal means). I've tried it and I
>> can receive one too. As it's now in the public domain I suspect it will
>> soon be overwhelmed with applications.
>>
>> We're not going to take advantage of it, but what would others have done?
>>
Do you mean the NHS site? You need to enter a ten digit number that will be provided to you by the NHS to book.
If you are talking of some other site be careful. There have apparently been number of fraudulent sites out there.
|
My understanding from other places is that:
The NHS site will only allow you to book if you are actually eligible. If you are given a slot online when you try, but haven't received your letter, that just means the system is ahead of the letter getting to you. You're eligible and it's ok. If you are not given a slot, then you are simply not yet eligible. Try tomorrow.
So book if you can, it's what they want you to do. The bit on the front page that says "You can only use this service if you have received a letter inviting you to book your vaccination appointments" isn't actually so.
www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/book-coronavirus-vaccination/
As we are in group 6 and not yet eligible, I've not tried, and I emphasise, the above is only my understanding of the situation.
|
|
Letter arrived this morning and appointment booked.
|
|
Text message arrived yesterday, and appointment booked for next week. I've no idea what brand of jollop I will be receiving.
|
>> Text message arrived yesterday, and appointment booked for next week. I've no idea what brand
>> of jollop I will be receiving.
Jabbed locally by a doctor a couple of days ago following a text message. All very efficient - credit where credit is due!
Mine was AZ.
|
My surgery website advises they are rolling out the vaccinations for 70 to 75 age group on Monday so I expect to be contacted early next week.
They are combined with four other local surgeries and have an injection centre at a local school.
I know they use the AZ vaccine as my Sister in Law and her husband had their jabs there last week.
|
>> They are combined with four other local >>surgeries and have an injection centre at a
>> local school.
Similar at my end. Three other local surgeries at a nearby sports centre.
We were asked to remain for 15 minutes if driving.
|
>> Similar at my end. Three other local surgeries at a nearby sports centre.
>>
Similar but at the largest surgery /centre
>> We were asked to remain for 15 minutes if driving.
I have asked in advance and they said no wait after AZ version.
Also do not turn up early as you will clog up parking.
Expect to be in and out quickly , much like the flu jab.
All boxes ticked ( over the phone ) so no hold ups.
Booked for two weeks time.
Car passed its MoT this morning after long SORN ( Thanks to son delivering it ) so tax tomorrow and we are set to go.
|
|
Good news about the MOT Henry, that's a box ticked! I hope it all goes well, from what you said the other day, once the jabs are done it will give you a small amount of well earned respite.
|
Thanks smokie.
I have found a local stand alone MoT test place so doubly pleased, a place and a pass.
I will have the option of paying for a trusted familiar, had her jab, lady from the Council Day Care team to " baby sit ".
The Day Care Centre may well restart in just a few months time and I can the really be let loose.
After taxing the car I guess I had better get a trendy face mask before venturing afar and learn all the new shop protocols.
Meanwhile best wishes to all in the jab queue.
|
>> >> Similar at my end. Three other local surgeries at a nearby sports centre.
>> >>
>> Similar but at the largest surgery /centre
Where did you go for yours H? I had mine at Giggs Hill Green.
|
>> Where did you go for yours H? I had mine at Giggs Hill Green.
>>
Thats where we are booked in.
|
>> Car passed its MoT this morning after long SORN ( Thanks to son delivering it
>> ) so tax tomorrow and we are set to go.
Wouldn't it be advisable to wait until Monday? Otherwise you'll be paying a months worth of tax for just one day.
|
>> Wouldn't it be advisable to wait until Monday? Otherwise you'll be paying a months worth
>> of tax for just one day.
>>
01 Feb was the target date. Thanks
Brain fade when at the keyboard ?
Dustbin day seems to be the key day of the week :-(
|
Is here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/867967/APA%20-%20AstraZeneca.pdf in case anyone is intesrested.
This will directly download the pdf to your computer.
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 11:57
|
from the BBC news
. The EU is expected to announce later that vaccine producers will need approval to export to countries outside the bloc, including the UK.
The so-called export transparency mechanism will affect all major drug companies that have signed deals to produce the vaccine for the bloc, and comes in the wake of production problems at two major vaccine suppliers, AstraZeneca and Pfizer.
It would mean EU member states would have the power to individually authorise or reject a vaccine manufacturer’s application to export elsewhere.
The decision would be based on whether the company can prove that it has delivered on its vaccine contract with the EU, before the vaccine doses are exported elsewhere.
An EU official says the new system will mean that "any exporting company would send in to their national authorities what they plan to export, when, to whom and what amount".
The national authorities would then be allowed to check that and to give an authorisation or a refusal.
As we are closely aligning ourselves to the EU regulations as part of the trade deal, I guess we will need to do the same. Alas that stops the Oxford vaccine being exported to the EU
|
I'm not sure they've thought this through. At the moment it's the capacity to refuse export, which they've not done. However its a pretty big message to send and a path that's difficult to walk back from.
I wonder how many supporting this realise that the only vaccine cleared for use in the EU has a major chemical component made in the UK?
|
It’s also not a great message to those thinking of setting up manufacturing facilities of anything strategic in the EU, if the playing field can be unilaterally changed at the drop of a hat. They’re really not thinking very rationally at the moment are they?
And though I’m not a lawyer, I’ve seen a few contracts in my time, I don’t think that publishing, albeit redacted, the contract helps them much at all.
ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/867990/APA%20-%20AstraZeneca.pdf
Clauses 5.1 and 5.4 articulate that the obligation to establish the manufacturing facilities and then deliver the vaccine are "best reasonable efforts". This term is defined in the contract and isn’t a strict liability clause, so AZ just has to reasonably try it's best. Though whether best reasonable efforts is a higher bar than reasonable best efforts I do not know.
Then Clause 5.4 says AZ should use best reasonable efforts to establish manufacturing facilities in both the EU And the UK. But Clause 5.1 which is what provides for actually delivering the vaccine only refers to the vaccine being manufactured within the EU (and not UK). So I can’t see there’s any commitment for AZ to deliver any vaccine from outside the EU. They’ve gone to the trouble in 5.4 of saying that the definition of EU to include U.K. is only for that clause, removing any potential ambiguity that they might have used to claim a breach.
And Clause 5.1 seems to say (based on my interpretation of the redacting) that the initial doses need to be delivered by, presumably the end, of Q1. So there’s no breach until April 1, 2021 anyway.
I reckon if we (the U.K.) can now manage without the Pfizer deliveries (bar those needed for second doses) we should offer them to the EU. I’m sure they be gratefully received ;)
Last edited by: PeterS on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 13:22
|
My mate in Germany told me yesterday that their press was reporting that the EU wanted to publish the contract and AZ didn't.
So it seems the EU are trying to make AZ look like the bad guys. Presumably to preempt any criticism of themselves.
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 14:02
|
>> And though I’m not a lawyer, I’ve seen a few contracts in my time, I
>> don’t think that publishing, albeit redacted, the contract helps them much at all.
>>
I can't be a*sed to read every word, but I think any lawyer that was involved in drafting that, listening the posturing from the EU, will probably be having kittens.
Ursula von der L, for instance, is quoted that the "best reasonable efforts" applies only to development of the vaccine, not the subsequent manufacture and delivery - the definition sort of leans slightly that way, but the contract plainly applies "reasonable best efforts" to the whole lifecycle.
You've pointed out the clear difference between 5.1 and 5.4 (somebody dropped one there, I think. The 5.4 wording was probably added because they realised some of the plants were already in the UK, but didn't cover the same issue off in 5.1).
The lawyers will have a field day if it comes to it (though the dirty politics might win).
What I find interesting in the definition of "best reasonable efforts", is that it draws comparison with comparable enterprises. Pfizer also having entirely similar current issues, with entirely similar current results rather puts a scythe through that definition.
I'm far from being a Europhobic, but they've got behind the game of their own volition, and are now looking for scapegoats.
...and the EU having now put export controls on vaccines from the EU positions our government to do the same (at least to the EU) with impunity.
"What did you do in the vaccine wars, Daddy?".
|
|
I don't think any AZ/Oxford vaccine is currently exported to the EU.
|
>> I don't think any AZ/Oxford vaccine is currently exported to the EU.
But yesterday the EU said it should be to make up a shortfall.
|
>> >> I don't think any AZ/Oxford vaccine is currently exported to the EU.
>>
>> But yesterday the EU said it should be to make up a shortfall.
>>
I know, I was just replying to zero's comment that we should stop exporting the AZ vaccine.
|
From the BBC, this is the EU's problem, but when they tried to push the US they got told to go away.
Ultimately if they ban exports that is nothing to do with AZ or the AZ contract. That will be them against Pfizer.
So they are expecting to pressure AZ by threatening Pfizer. Well, let's see how that goes...
Supplies run low in Europe
Vaccinations in parts of Europe are already being held up and in some cases halted because of a cut in deliveries of the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine:
In Spain, Madrid and the northern Cantabria region have halted first vaccinations to focus on second doses for at least two weeks
Regional health authorities in France are delaying vaccination appointments. More than 1.1 million people have received a jab so far
Vienna's city councillor for health says delivery problems are leading to delays in vaccinations by up to two weeks. "We are really operating in a dramatic form of shortage economy," said Peter Hacker
The Dutch government was the last in the EU to start a vaccination programme and by the end of January the Netherlands will have had no more than 757,000 doses, mainly from Pfizer. It initially based its strategy on the assumption the AstraZeneca vaccine would be available first
The head of Croatia's public health institute says Pfizer has reduced the number of doses for the next three shipments and all the doses in Croatia are now being kept for second shots
|
More bad news for the EU, another UK based vaccine is seemingly on it's way....
www.bbc.com/news/uk-55850352
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-55840567
60 million doses of Oxford / AZ vaccines from the French owned plant.
UK Government buys 100% capacity for 12 months in the Spring 2020 - £55m upfront investment
The plant has produced various vaccines over a number of years but is now committed to Oxford/AZ vaccine for at least 12 months by which time it will presumably sell to anyone anywhere in the world..
|
Put bluntly - the EU fouled up. They contracted late, and funded R&D at a much lower level than UK. They are now desperately tooking for someone to blame.
The UK is a good target as we have just left the EU and will anyway be blamed for all their subsequent budget problems.
They have no levers to pull to directly impact the UK - if push comes to shove the UK can simply ban vaccine sales (require export licences).
This pushes up the potential for retaliatory action on other trade - something that would damage both sides - daft!
|
"This pushes up the potential for retaliatory action on other trade"
The European Project is a fanatical religion and we are apostates; we can expect to be punished.
|
>> "This pushes up the potential for retaliatory action on other trade"
>>
>> The European Project is a fanatical religion and we are apostates; we can expect to
>> be punished.
>>
How very silly.
|
>> The European Project is a fanatical religion and we are apostates; we can expect to
>> be punished.
Is it any wonder the remainers think you brexiteers are pathetically nuts, and we got bounced out of the EU by people who dont think normally?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 16:22
|
I suspect that there is a secondary emotion behind all this. The EU was emotionally wounded and hurt that the UK decided to leave the EU. I think they consoled themselves both publicly and privately about how the UK would live to regret leaving the wonderful EU [as indeed we might] and come cap in hand for favours.
Right now though, the EU is feeling rather foolish about it's handling of the vaccination process and the sight of the UK cruising off into the distance with its successful vaccination programme is bringing it all into rather sharp relief.
We are dealing with a sulky child which has had it's mistakes pointed out.
It is worth remembering that it could easily have gone quite the other way and may well do so in the future. Dancing on the misfortunes of others is a dangerous game.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 16:07
|
EU confirms export controls on vaccines
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55860540
I cannot see that this will achieve anything beyond being an attempt to hide their own failings.
Unless the UK suddenly has a problem with the AZ vaccine it neither needs to import or export vaccine.
I don't think any of the AZ vaccine is being exported from the EU. I expect that the Pfizer one is though.
It may be that some of thee ingredients are exported or imported, I don't know, but even if they are the EU would have to go to a whole 'nother level to catch that.
I suspect squabbling will start within the EU soon. Is it Hungary that has already bought and is about to begin using the Russian vaccine?
Also one of the vaccines needed by the EU is manufactured in Switzerland (non EU). The Moderna one perhaps.
|
Amazing, they still haven't authorised its use yet,.
|
|
Oh they have - finally 15 minutes ago.
|
" Dancing on the misfortunes of others is a dangerous game."
The word, again, is epicaricacy - and it isn't something that I indulge in; I watch too much football.
|
|
The UK was also quite genuinely blamed, and thought badly of, across Europe as the source of one of the new mutations...
|
|
You'll be telling us next that EU virus is pure and doesn't mutate, Unless authored by the commission.
|
Haha - well the Germans are not going to use AX on over 65s apparently. Insufficiently tested.
Who's right?
|
The strange thing about "insufficiently tested" is that they mean there is not sufficient evidence that it is effective, not that there is insufficient information about it's safety.
I'd guess, and I don't know, that they don't want to face the same dilemma that the EU is facing and are counting on the fact that their slower start will mean that they will dodge Pfizer shortages and so won't need to do battle with AZ if they limit their usage of the AZ vaccine.
|
>> The strange thing about "insufficiently tested" is that they mean there is not sufficient evidence
>> that it is effective, not that there is insufficient information about it's safety.
>>
It's even more nuanced than that as I heard it. It has a strong immunological action in over 65s, presumably as measured by the number of antibodies and T-cells, so the UK experts infer that it will be effective at preventing/ameliorating the disease. But the effectiveness at preventing disease has not been measured directly for the over 65s, or at least not in enough people.
|
"Haha - well the Germans are not going to use AX on over 65s apparently. Insufficiently tested."
AFAIK - it has only been tested on Brits, not Germans.
|
And yet, and yet....
However many suppliers there are the supply of vaccine is finite. How many doses has the UK on order across Pfizer, AZ, Novavax etc?
The EU too may well have vastly over ordered.
|
I don't understand the and yet bit.
The UK ordered....
AZ 100m
GSK/Sonafi 60m (delayed)
Novavax 60m
Valneva 60m (Phase 2 to complete Q2 sometime)
Pfizer 40m
J&J/Janssen 30m (Just completing Phase 2)
Moderna 17m
A total of 367m against something like 140m* needed with zero wastage and 100% take-up.
The problem being that they had no idea which vaccinations would be approved so spread the purchase.
The EU (and from memory so take with a pinch of salt)
Pfizer 600m (Increased from 300m to 600m at beginning Jan)
AZ 400m
GSK/Sanofi 400m (delayed Phase 2 testing beginning Jan)
J&J/Janssen 400m (Just completing Phase 2)
Curevac/Bayer 400m (delayed Phase 2 testing beginning Jan)
Moderna 200m
Novavax 200m
Valneva 60m (Phase 2 to complete Q2 sometime)
A total of 2.66bn* against something like 1bn needed.
However, for both, the higher priority is delivery schedule not total amount. The supply problems will be gone by April.
*Ignoring that J&J is single dose.
|
An interesting aside, AZ didn't apply for authorisation until 12th Jan. I wonder why.
If you can be a***d, then the EU Strategy released last June pretty much indicates that the bean counters were in charge of vaccine purchase, not any medial or scientific people.
It's rather reminiscent of what happens to business IT requirements when they are passed to Procurement.
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0245&from=EN
|
Thie difference in approach is stark... the U.K. vaccine task-force is headed up by a venture capitalist, and she’s doing it for free on a 6 month assignment. Not only that, the order sign -off only needed 4 people, which didn’t include Boris or the Chancellor AFAIK. So it was able to respond very quickly indeed.
This is behind the FTs paywall, but is lifted from an article published November 13th last year, well before the current controversy:
“Leading scientists have defended Kate Bingham, the controversial head of the UK’s vaccine task force, praising her work in securing the country’s access to one of the world’s largest portfolios of coronavirus vaccines — including the first deal to buy the leading candidate from Pfizer and BioNTech.
Ms Bingham, a venture capitalist who in May accepted an unpaid six-month assignment to accelerate the development of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine for the UK, has been under fire for allegedly sharing sensitive information at a private investment conference and for hiring expensive PR consultants.
But medical scientists and biotech executives have told the Financial Times that under her stewardship, the task force had succeeded not only in signing deals for a total of 350m doses of six vaccines for the UK, but also establishing a strong manufacturing, distribution and clinical trials infrastructure to support their introduction.
Kate Bingham has signed deals for a total of 350m doses of six vaccines for the UK.
“The vaccine task force and its leadership have transformed the UK’s ability to procure, manufacture and distribute vaccines,” said Iain Foulkes, head of commercialisation for Cancer Research UK. “This work will be vital for ensuring an effective vaccine can be administered promptly and bring to an end this devastating pandemic, which is affecting patients, including those diagnosed with cancer, everywhere.””
|
|
Now there's someone who needs a knighthood, not some t*** in a racing car.
|
|
...yeah, Sir Kate Bingham has a bit of a ring to it ;-)
|
350million - is a bit OTT but at the time the efficacy of all vaccines was in doubt.
Mind you, even if we are forced to buy more there will be a ready buyer somewhere to take on the overage.
|
"Mind you, even if we are forced to buy more there will be a ready buyer somewhere to take on the overage."
By the time we get to the overage, the virus will have mutated again and we will take up the volume with a new modified vaccine. Eventually, it will all settle down.
|
|
Indeed. Having too much is preferable to not enough, as the EU is finding out. The cost is irrelevant to all intents and purposes.
|
>>"The vaccine task force and its leadership have transformed the UK's ability to procure, manufacture and distribute vaccines," said Iain Foulkes, head of commercialisation for Cancer Research UK.
Confirmation, if it were needed, that when something commercial and important needs doing, you don't get it done by a politician or a civil servant.
|
Confirmation, if it were needed, that when something commercial and important needs doing, you don't get it done by a politician or a civil servant.
OR
a EU Committees & their bean counting hierarchy
|
|
Can you imagine how many people were needed to sign off the EU plan? I reckon 10 or 12 in the EC itself, and 6 in each of the 26 member countries. 150 or so. And as we all know, the time taken to make a decision rises exponentially as more people get involved. The quality of the decision deteriorates in a similar manner...
|
|
And none of them will have had any concern other than with their own self-importance along with little or no knowledge of, or interest in, the ideal solution approach.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55864442
Well, I'm not sure many saw that coming. Seems an odd move to make as NI gets it's vaccines from the UK anyway.
There's no upside and lots of downside to this move especially as they seemed to be the strongest voice to avoid any sort of border at all.
Is there anyone high up in the EU that can get a grip of this, as the situation seems to be spinning out of control.
|
|
Wow, thats incredibly stupid of the EU.
|
>> Wow, thats incredibly stupid of the EU.
>>
Not as stupid as this...
www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/01/29/eu-threatens-war-time-occupation-vaccine-makers-crisis-spirals/
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard said:
The EU sledgehammer is coming down. The European Council is preparing to invoke emergency powers of Article 122 against AstraZeneca and Big Pharma within days.
This nuclear option paves the way for the seizure of intellectual property and data, and arguably direct control over the production process – tantamount to war-time occupation of private companies. This is Europe First pushed to another level. It takes the EU into the territory of 1930s methods and an authoritarian command economy.
...
Mr Michel raised the idea in a letter to four prime ministers on Wednesday night. He is now canvassing all 27 leaders. The clear intention is to hold AstraZeneca’s feet to the fire.
...
The dirigiste economy minister, Peter Altmaier, says he favours seizing control of the production process and ordering companies to manufacture vaccines at multiple sites, with a gun to their head.
|
Sorry if I've missed this..
What happens to the excess orders? if we've committed to buy an amount and then don't need it do we still pay?
|
Probably, but the vaccine cost is almost trivial (£2-£13 per dose depending upon variety iirc)
Spaffed as much on Oseltamavir (Tamiflu) back in the swine flu era on tablets that do very little.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 29 Jan 21 at 21:11
|
...sold on in the open market to the highest bidder....
(or, if the Government want to be ethical, at or below cost to 3rd world buyers)
|
>>What happens to the excess orders? if we've committed to buy an amount and then don't need it do we still pay?
We commit to a certain amount, have options on a further amount, and favourable terms for more.
Conditional on vaccine performance and authorisation within certain timescales with commitments to ongoing improvement, bearing in mind that it is probably going to become an annual need with incr5easing variants.
|
|
NEW: Brussels to withdraw incendiary plan floated hours ago to use new vaccine export curbs to in effect create a hard border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, per EU officials. "It was an error. We are changing it," said one EU official of the abortive plan.
|
|
Well that’s a start. They just need to admit that their vaccination programme is a mess too, and perhaps people/companies/countries will be more inclined to engage!
|
|
It's not often someone manages to unite the government, the opposition, all the parties in NI and the Irish government but the EU commission managed it.
|
|
One wonders if the EU are trying to prevent mass civil disorder spreading from Holland across the bloc. Direct the blame on someone else, tough action they can crow about etc. The Germans & The French both more or less saying "well its not that effective anyway". has to be a concerted effort.
|
I think there's an element of worry about mass disobedience in France related to another lockdown. They've backed away from it for now. But history shows riots aren't uncommon in France when people start to get unhappy.
I see there's a bit of a wave of restaurants that are openly ignoring the rules and opening anyway.
It's fairly reasonable to suggest Macron is busy pointing finger to create a distraction.
|
Having worked in healthcare for >20yrs, efficiency of operation appears inversely proportional to the size of the organisation (or at least the number of 'decision makers').
Why EU member states would want to give vaccine delivery control to the EU itself amazes me.
As someone noted above, the UK is doing relatively well because there were only a handful of (competent) decision makers involved.
|
"Why EU member states would want to give vaccine delivery control to the EU itself amazes me."
Vaccine delivery ......
Product registration .......
...... is that all?
|
The EU is threatening to take over the AZ manufacturing plant in Belgium under emergency powers to ensure production rate improves.
All the AZ personnel will be working hard to fine tune the manufacturing process to increase the yields and reduce wastage. Sending officials in would not move matters forward, in fact it would disturb the work from everyone involved in the process.
As an observer pointed out making a new vaccine is not the same as making bread whereby more hands can improve the production levels. Even drafting in biochemists from universities & other drug manufacturers would be counterproductive as coming in cold they would be useless.
NI Border "closure", banning exports, threatening a major supplier - It appears that the EU is looking for any excuse to hide their ineptitude in ordering late, distribution and their in-built 27 country agreement united policy for vaccination.
As far as the EU is concerned there is a lot of the brown stuff to hit the fans in the weeks to come.
|
>>The EU is threatening to take over the AZ manufacturing plant in Belgium under emergency powers to ensure production rate improves.
Insane taken at face value. It's an urgent need, the best people to make it work are the ones who are up to speed.
If they have the money to pursue this they should just write the cheques and let the people who know how, do it.
|
...having been busy rebuilding my S-i-L's failed computer (remotely, there's fun :-( ), I've had a little bit more time to look at the contract, and if it went to law, it looks to me that the EU would be well and truly stuffed.
Fundamentally, it seems there are three related clauses at play:
i) The "best reasonable endeavours" definition. As I've already stated above, the defined term (in the contract) draws a parallel with what would/could be expected of a similar sized organisation undertaking a similar contract. Given that Pfizer appear to be in the same difficult position as AZ, (I believe there are "scaling up" issues with other manufacturers) I think it would be relatively easy for AZ to demonstrate (by comparison) that it was delivering "best reasonable endeavours".
ii) Clause 5.1 (which I think, interpreted as it is written, not what the EU would like it to say) is the killer. It places a duty on AZ to "manufacture the Initial Europe Doses" (i.e. those at dispute now and for the foreseeable future) "within the EU for distribution". By the addition of the wording in clause 5.4 (see below) "the EU" here explicitly excludes the UK. So, AZ have contracted to use "best reasonable efforts" to meet that current (initial) demand from EU (excluding UK) manufacture only.
One might see this as poor drafting. On the contrary, the contrast between 5.1 and 5.4 (clauses so close together which one would have thought would both have been amended to include the UK in the definition of EU, if desired) leads me to believe it is both deliberate and logical. This EU contract was signed well after the existing and near future UK capacity had been contractually committed to the UK, and thus AZ knew there was no spare UK capacity to meet the "initial Europe doses".
This backs the stance of the AZ CEO stating that all current UK production was already contractually committed to the UK.
iii) Clause 5.4 plays in two ways; first it states that the definition of the EU includes the UK for the purpose of this clause only, thereby providing the killer wording in 5.1 above. Second it places "best reasonable endeavours" on AZ to manufacture in the EU (as defined above, for this clause only to include the UK), or, only by explicit agreement, elsewhere. This is a generic clause allowing AZ ultimately to supply from manufacturing anywhere in the EU or the UK at its own option, and ask for relaxation to manufacture and supply from elsewhere by prior agreement. It does not require or commit AZ to supply from UK stocks (and indeed, clause 5.1 would dictate that it shouldn't/won't for the initial demand). I would interpret that this clause has been inserted to allow AZ to deliver any later "optional" and/or "additional" doses from either the EU, or from any then excess capacity in the UK. (but at its option, not the EU demand), or to ask the EU for permission to supply (beyond the initial demand) from plant(s) elsewhere.
I'm sure there will be lawyers poring over this around Europe, but I don't think publication has helped the EU argument one jot. On the contrary.....
|
I was delighted to see the contract was drawn up in English.
I bet that actually riles Macron who is pushing for the EU to adopt French as the common European language.
|
Thanks for that :-)
I think publishing it probably does work in their favour as few people will read it, and even less understand it, but they will see the leadership as open and transparent and assume that the contract supports the argument, whereas AZ, who (allegedly) didn't want the contract published will be seen as having something to hide.
The outcome of a court case decided in favour of the UK could even be a bit Trump-ish, with the people believing the verdict was "stolen".
|
It might be a mistake, but like you I don't think the fact that 5.1 does not define EU as including UK was a drafting error. Quite the opposite, hence the the very explicit wording of 5.4 designed to remove doubt.
I expect AZ's lawyers, especially if they are the ones who worked on the agreement, are telling them they are fireproof. The best reasonable endeavours (what a mish mash) wording can only have been agreed to because it got AZ off the hook off a contractual obligation to supply.
If reasonable endeavours means they have to try, then best reasonable endeavours can only mean they have to really try. How is 'trying' not 'really trying'? They are the same, unless you have to rank one against the other.
|
Very sad state of affairs. I have little doubt the drafters of the contract knew exactly what they were doing. Politicians are now asking their side to find ways to make it mean something else.
|
...I've just found this (legally based) review, which largely (though in better form) restates the view I've set out above.
tinyurl.com/azcontract
The only bit in which I would differ (but what do I know) is the assessment of the last paragraph, introducing the impact of clause 13.1. (particularly part e).
Since this involves (again) the delivery of "initial European doses", which are already contractually tagged as being supplied from within the EU (not including the UK), then even this drafting has no contractual bearing on the current UK manufacture and supply.
The one additional effect it could have would be if/when AZ were supplying vaccine manufactured in the EU (excluding the UK) to the detriment of "initial European doses" supply to the EU.
|
....and....
Though the EU are still harping on about wanting access to UK-manufactured doses, I've just noted another reason why the clauses were (most probably) worded as they were.
It is clear (from the contract) that the EU were committing money "up-front" to provide for the capacity to manufacture (the "Initial European Doses"). The amount of around €100M resonates.
There has been talk (I think on here, but also elsewhere) that the EU had also invested in UK manufacturing capability. I don't think that is true - any ramping up in the UK was, I believe, underwritten by the earlier UK contract, and the released Astrazeneca contract rather reinforces that view.
The wording of clause 5.1, setting out that "Astrazeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the "Initial European Doses" in the EU (which, in this use explicitly excludes the UK), married up with wording in the Recitals, and the contractual "up-front" commitment indicates to me a combination of:
a) the EU wishing the up-front commitment to the scale-up for the "Initial European Doses" to result in manufacturing investment in the EU (and explicitly not the UK). I don't find this anything but natural in the circumstances, but any (even implicit) expectation of the initial supply, or even part of it, coming from the UK would rather undermine this stance.
b) Astrazeneca were entirely happy with this arrangement, since the UK capacity was already committed, funded in part or full by the UK, and required augmentation for UK delivery would be funded or underwritten by the UK Government.
Whilst, as I say, the debate rumbles on, the more I look at the contract, the more it both supports Astrazeneca's stance that the EU aren't entitled to UK manufactured doses for their initial needs, and looks a fairly logical result of the EU wanting all the initial capacity build and delivery to be EU internal.
(OTOH, if AZ have been diverting significant EU-manufactured supplies to the UK, there's an entirely different debate to be had!)
|
>>There has been talk (I think on here, but also elsewhere) that the EU had also invested in UK manufacturing capability.
I don't believe that is so. Also, the money that the EU did agree to invest has not yet been invested. Or at least the majority of it has not been. (I cannot remember where I read that, but it was in an EU briefing paper somewhere).
>> if AZ have been diverting significant EU-manufactured supplies to the UK, there's an entirely different debate to be had
Well now, that depends on your understanding of "significant", which I assume would mean with impact to their EU deliveries. The EU alleges that AZ EU production was exported to the UK. I think, though, that they are wrong and certainly AZ were sort of denying it but mostly saying it was nothing to do with the EU whether or not they did.
I think there is little doubt that any legal argument is pointless and doomed to failure. That is why the EU keeps pursuing exceptional action using their constitution and agreements rather than legally attacking the AZ contract. They hope that this and their political, public and media pressure will force a resolution.
However, this is a short time supply problem which is expected to be resolve prior to the end of Q1 so they're only looking for a very short term change, which seems both unlikely and impractical.
Expect a face changing but otherwise inconsequential agreement as the Commission and its Presdient pursue their only real objective of keeping their jobs.
|
>> >>There has been talk (I think on here, but also elsewhere) that the EU had
>> also invested in UK manufacturing capability.
>>
>> I don't believe that is so.
Neither do I, which is in the bit you've snipped.... ;-)
>>Also, the money that the EU did agree to
>> invest has not yet been invested. Or at least the majority of it has not
>> been. (I cannot remember where I read that, but it was in an EU briefing
>> paper somewhere).
I'd be surprised at this, since the contract dictates a large up-front payment (As I read it, €224M by the end of last August - I can't see the EU taking such a stance against AZ if that hadn't happened!)
>>
>> >> if AZ have been diverting significant EU-manufactured supplies to the UK, there's an entirely
>> different debate to be had
>>
>> Well now, that depends on your understanding of "significant", which I assume would mean with
>> impact to their EU deliveries. The EU alleges that AZ EU production was exported to
>> the UK. I think, though, that they are wrong and certainly AZ were sort of
>> denying it but mostly saying it was nothing to do with the EU whether or
>> not they did.
>>
You're correct about my use of "significant". I suspect that, if AZ were using facilities ostensibly funded up-front by the EU, there'd be all hell to pay. But, there is no proof as yet that such an event has taken place.
>> I think there is little doubt that any legal argument is pointless and doomed to
>> failure. That is why the EU keeps pursuing exceptional action using their constitution and agreements
>> rather than legally attacking the AZ contract. They hope that this and their political, public
>> and media pressure will force a resolution.
>>
Somewhere in a previous post I said it was political "willy waving". The thing that confuses me is that the contract doesn't appear to help the EU cause (and all the real interested parties will have a copy anyway, and have formed their own opinion already). You do, of course, have to read and interpret it to come to a conclusion (right or wrong), so the only thing you can think is they wanted the reaction "They were prepared to publish it, so they must be right!".
|
>Also, the money that the EU did agree to
>> invest has not yet been invested. Or at least the majority of it has not
>> been. (I cannot remember where I read that, but it was in an EU briefing
>> paper somewhere).
>
>I'd be surprised at this, since the contract dictates a large up-front payment
I do not know how much the EU promised to pay AZ, nor how much of that has been paid. Though I guess I could find out. What I do know [have read] is that of the amount the EU said they were going to invest as part of their Vaccine Strategy, the majority has not been invested.
|
If they'd gone down the legal route what would they claim other than AZ were in breach of contract?
That would require a judge to decide the meaning of every part of the contract and listen to arguments from each party as to what their intention and understanding was when each point was drafted and included. Months or probably years if there were appeals and counter-claims. (Unless you have a bunch of tame Judges on your side).
The EU doesn't have the time for a protracted legal battle.
|
Rule one I think in commercial disputes is that where the agreement is clear and unequivocal then the court will follow that and what was in the minds of the parties is immaterial. Happy to be corrected if necessary. So they have to find something on which the contract is ambiguous or silent, or argue about what "best reasonable endeavours" means.
We know what was in the minds of the parties on the endeavours - the EU wanted them on the hook, and AZ weren't going to be in breach if they could help it. It's a classic fudge that just kicks the argument down the road if things go wrong.
|
It is a rare procurement department that understand the best deals benefit both partners or knows how to draft a contract.
My particular bug bear, though not related to this case at all, is that Procurement groups love Fixed Price but have no concept of Fixed Scope.
|
This was in the US, but:
I was involved as a witness in a fairly high profile legal case where my employer was sued by a failing company who dreamed up a scheme to extort licence fees from users of the Linux kernel.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group,_Inc._v._International_Business_Machines_Corp.
The other party's lawyers disputed the meaning of everything in the contract that contradicted their claim, even including miscitation of previous rulings in their submissions and resorting to: "Yes, that's what it says but not what we meant, as our witnesses will testify."
Since there was no agreement by the parties on any of the material terms in the contract Judge Kimball was forced to decide point by point exactly what the language and terms meant.
What I'm saying is that it is quite easy for an experienced lawyer to game the system enough to manufacture sufficient disagreement to require a judge's ruling, thereby extending the case for months or even years.
|
...I have been party to a number of conversations with CEOs (not contract executives) where the other party has said (literally) "the contract may say that, but it doesn't mean it".
It did (and it did).
One memorable occasion was with the CEO of a (abbreviated) two-letter large software firm renowned for such posturing.
"The company may also use the software for the purposes of providing services to third-parties" (or similar).
|
|
One of the lawyers where I work sent me an extract from the force majeure clause in the contract. Amusingly it mentions epidemic as a reason for non delivery of the contract so even if the EU manages to enforce the other clauses AZ can just point to the force majeure clause. Obviously a boiler plate clause not properly reviewed by the EU lawyers.
|
"Amusingly it mentions epidemic as a reason for non delivery of the contract ........"
I worked for 28 years for a major German chemical manufacturer, at one stage writing standard operating procedures; my colleagues loved to pontificate on the precise meanings of words. Right now, they would be arguing that we are experiencing a pandemic - NOT an epidemic.
|
Having been involved in a variety of large business relationships over the years, there is a common thread running through all of them.
The agreement is a document, signed by both parties with each party placing its own interpretation on the contents.
At that point there is no dispute and therefore differing interpretations are not an issue. Even were they a possible issue, they would be subordinated to the desire for agreement.
Perceptions of individual risks and weaknesses in the agreement are not common to both parties - a conspiracy by the lawyers in drafting is unlikey.
If disputes arise for whatever reason, the first port of call is the agreement. This often solves the problem. But it is no surprise that in the event of a dispute, different interpretations embedded in the original document are exposed.
The most likely reason for differing interpretation are phrases and language which are imprecise - best and/or reasonable endeavours being a common case. Unsurprisingly both parties cling to their preferred version of "right".
They will also scrutinise the agreement to find other imprecision and inconsistencies, that they had not previously been aware of, if it helps support the case they want to make.
Reality is that the EU screwed up. They are trying to use the agreement to find justification (however weak or flawed) for words, phrases or clauses that allow them to challenge or dispute the outcome.
|
I would hazard a guess that the EU's handling of this from June until now, especially the last month, has done more harm to the future stability of the EU than Brexit ever could have done.
Perhaps this will drive the EU back to the trade agreement it should be, not the constitutional Government it wants to be.
|
|
If the EU gets even sillier and tries to invade the AZ production facility, then presumably the intellectual property they would try to seize actually belongs to either the UK Government or Oxford University, not AZ who presumably merely own rights to use it.
|
>> If the EU gets even sillier and tries to invade the AZ production facility, then
>> presumably the intellectual property they would try to seize actually belongs to either the UK
>> Government or Oxford University, not AZ who presumably merely own rights to use it.
>>
If you mean the facility in Belgium, I think the EC asked the Belgian health authorities to go to the plant, however whether they went or not I don't know. Information is a bit thin about it or it might not even be true.
Or did you mean the plant in the UK?
Anyway seems everything has calmed down for now, Gove and the VP of the European commission have agreed to a 'reset'
|
>> If you mean the facility in Belgium, I think the EC asked the Belgian health
>> authorities to go to the plant,
The EU are hunting for proof that some of the early output from the Belgium plant was exported to the UK to be part of the 100 million doses. they want access to the records as part of their claim.
|
"Perhaps this will drive the EU back to the trade agreement it should be, not the constitutional Government it wants to be."
I don't recall that being an option in June 2016 though.
|
|
FFS, can't you let that damn referendum go? You're obsessed. Or perhaps simply limited, which I suspect is more likely.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 30 Jan 21 at 17:58
|
"FFS, can't you let that damn referendum go? You're obsessed. Or perhaps simply limited, which I suspect is more likely."
So - are you, or are you not a fanboy of the EU? You seem to be very confused.
And try not to get nasty - it's a fair question.
|
Personally I think it profoundly stupid but Brexit is done. Get over it. Move on and make it work.
Anything else is a waste of energy and emotion.
|
>> Personally I think it profoundly stupid but Brexit is done. Get over it. Move on
>> and make it work.
>>
>> Anything else is a waste of energy and emotion.
Absolutely. But some can't, or at least won't. An empty life, perhaps, maybe where they became used to a previously full life and struggle to deal with their loss of relevance.
|
>>blah blah blah it's a fair question. blah blah blah
If you want to know what I think, then read back. It's already in here and it's not changed. I have no interest in feeding your obsession or dealing with your limitations.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 30 Jan 21 at 18:25
|
|
Steady on, old girl - you'll explode!
|
>> Steady on, old girl - you'll explode!
As usual you over estimate your relevance, certainly to any material impact on me.
|
A GP I know tells me they are doing the care homes. They're surprised at the number of staff refusing the jab. A large prortion being BAME.
How would you feel if you were in a care home, or had a relative in one, knowing some staff hadn't been vaccinated?
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Sat 30 Jan 21 at 18:59
|
It's worrying however you look at it;
The vaccine is actually not a good thing for some minorities
Some minorities genuinely think it's a bad thing
Conspiracy theory nutters refusing.
None of those three is a good thing and I hope that attention is being paid. Be that attention on the vaccine, attention on education or attention on drop kicking the conspiracy nutters over the nearest wall.
|
|
How is it actually not a good thing?
|
>> How is it actually not a good thing?
Either you misunderstood or I wrote carelessly. My intention was to list the three possible alternatives, not say any were true or applied.
|
|
Ah, I see what you meant now.
|
This was reported on one of the news channels earlier in the week.
About 50% of the staff at one care home had refused. Reasons given (off camera) included:
I'm pregnant and it hasn't been proven safe for pregnant women.
It's a conspiracy.
I want to wait until I know if it's safe. (multiple times)
The care home owner was interviewed on camera and basically said that he was unhappy and frustrated but there wasn't much more he could do. He'd had vaccination written into employment contracts for future employees but he couldn't force existing employees to be vaccinated or dismiss them if they refused. Even if he could dismiss them, recruiting replacements in the current situation would be virtually impossible.
|
>>
>> It's a conspiracy.
>>
Miss Z reported the other day that a BAME consultant (mid 50s), outwardly very professional and good at their job, said whilst they believed in COVID , the deaths etc, they believed the lockdown and vaccines were a huge social experiment, the outcome of which we will never be told!
|
>> they believed the lockdown and vaccines were a huge social experiment, the outcome of which we will never be told!
>>
I think there's some truth in that, but it won't stop me having the vaccination!
|
|
I'm sure they will do some learning from it but I don't believe for a minute that any of this has been deliberately engineered.
|
>> >> they believed the lockdown and vaccines were a huge social experiment, the outcome of
>> which we will never be told!
>> >>
>> I think there's some truth in that,
None at all, If it was a social experiment its come at a huge ruinous cost. No one could have got it past the bean counters.
|
Again remember that the vaccine currently only reduces the chances of you becoming seriously ill, the proof still isn't there around transmission.
In care homes the priority must be to vaccinate the vulnerable, the staff could well be vaccinated but pass on cv19, that's why even though I'm vaccinated we still have to adhere to the appropriate PPE for the different areas I work in.
|
|
I didn't read "experiment" as a deliberate plot against the populace, rather that the virus is so widespread and virulent they're not sure about how to tackle it. Also, they don't know whether the vaccinations will work in the long term.
|
>> A GP I know tells me they are doing the care homes. They're surprised at
>> the number of staff refusing the jab. A large prortion being BAME.
>>
I heard part of the David Lammy programme on LBC this evening. Surprising the number of BAME people who either won't have the vaccine, or had to have a lot of persuasion to accept the jab.
I couldn't work out why, one 'reason' seemed to be because of the 'racism in the NHS'! Even if that were true, why does that stop you having the jab? It's a vicious circle, they will then claim that more BAME people are dying of Covid!
Don't get it.. Anyone care to explain?
|
|
.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 31 Jan 21 at 08:32
|
>> I heard part of the David Lammy programme on LBC this evening. Surprising the number
>> of BAME people who either won't have the vaccine, or had to have a lot
>> of persuasion to accept the jab.
>>
>> I couldn't work out why, one 'reason' seemed to be because of the 'racism in
>> the NHS'! Even if that were true, why does that stop you having the jab?
>> It's a vicious circle, they will then claim that more BAME people are dying of
>> Covid!
>>
>> Don't get it.. Anyone care to explain?
Dont ask, replies get deleted by someone
|
|
Someone been out with the scissors ?
|
|
Don't think so, not me anyway.
|
>> Don't get it.. Anyone care to explain?
I'm sure you are as capable with Google as the rest of us but there are articles here covering the subject:
www.gponline.com/gps-raise-alarm-low-uptake-covid-19-vaccine-bame-patients/article/1704790
www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/16/people-from-ethnic-minorities-less-likely-to-accept-covid-vaccine-says-poll
www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/25/meera-syal-and-adil-ray-among-celebs-in-video-urging-covid-vaccine-take-up-by-ethnic-minorities
One issue seems to be that the anti vaxers are targeting the BAME community.
It's already true that more BAME people die of covid.
I'd also be chary of using an all encompassing 'they' to describe the views/actions of BAME people. Across the piece they're a pretty diverse lot with a fair degree of stereotyping and racism in and between different groups. The one time I've had words with a staff member over racism was somebody from the Caribbean speaking of West Africans.
|
>> >> Don't get it.. Anyone care to explain?
>>
>> I'm sure you are as capable with Google as the rest of us but there
>> are articles here covering the subject:
If we (the all encompassing 'we') all used Google, then there would be even fewer people posting and answering questions on this forum.
>> I'd also be chary of using an all encompassing 'they' to describe the views/actions of
>> BAME people.
My use of the all encompassing 'they', referred to the authorities/the powers that be/government, rather than BAME people themselves.
I understand the answer, I don't understand the reasoning behind the answer.
|
Those articles don't say much as to why though?
Why are anti-vaxers targeting those communities, is it because they are more likely to believe it, if so why?
|
>> It's already true that more BAME people die of covid.
Probably not for biological reasons though. My guess is that it is for social, economic or cultural lifestyle differences
But in these days nobody really cares about actual links preferring easy explanations which suit their agenda.
>> One issue seems to be that the anti vaxers are targeting the BAME community
They' instinctively exploit vulnerable targets.
>> I'd also be chary of using an all encompassing 'they' to describe the views/actions of BAME people.
For just that reason I intensely dislike the term "BAME". You might as well say non-white. A classification grouping together dissimilar people for reasons somehow leaning towards virtue signalling.
|
>>Probably not for biological reasons though
If you mean as a result of their genetic code, I agree although it's not impossible as it may affect immune response to certain pathogens (an unrelated example: having a sickle-cell gene offers significant malaria protection so is more common in areas of Africa where malaria is endemic - it is an unhelpful gene for populations where malaria does not exist as if you inherit a pair of the genes it is very much not a survival advantage).
There are higher levels of diabetes (Black/Asian), obesity(Black), and heart disease(Black/Asian) in many non-white cultures (as well as impoverished white ones)
If you're bored this is a reasonable study but of course has limitations in how to interpret the data
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895695/S0452_CO-CIN_Ethnicity_and_Outcomes_from_COVID-19_in_UK_Hospital_Patients.pdf
|
>>If you mean as a result of their genetic code
I did mean that, thank you.
|
Corona virus pill instead of a jab ? - henry k
