Who's had the vaccine?

[Psamathe]

A piece in the business section of the Daily T suggests that AZ may be regretting the decision to do their vaccine on a not-for-profit basis. They have suffered reputational damage from the bad-mouthing and the share price has taken a hit.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ble-worth/

They'll get the profit back when their current contract with EU if fulfilled and EU ask for more and are given a price per dose with several zeros added where it "hurts". Sometimes regarded as "winning the battle and losing the war".

In my opinion some (few) politicians in the EU are being silly to try and distract from their prior failings (particularly highlighted by the UK's success). Politically it may or may not work. I've always found that to get things done you have to work with your suppliers and customers. Only once did we end-up ending a meeting with "we seem to need to move to get our lawyers talking to each other ..." at which point the project manager for the other party was quickly replaced and things then progressing in a positive manner.

If the EU politicians believe AZ are in breach of their contract then they should be taking them to court. If AZ are not in breach of their contract the EU politicians need to shut-up and admit their failings.

But it is a few EU politicians NOT "the EU". And as I understand it any EU country could still have approved the vaccine far earlier themselves, any individual EU country could have placed their own orders for the vaccine or invested in vaccine production facilities. They put their faith in a few EU politicians who let them down. (Just as the UK has been repeated let down by our politicians during the pandemic). So no "EU good/bad vs UK good/bad - just politicians messing up on both sides.

Ian

[ncutler]

A piece in the business section of the Daily T suggests that AZ may be regretting the decision to do their vaccine on a not-for-profit basis. They have suffered reputational damage from the bad-mouthing and the share price has taken a hit.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ble-worth/

I am beginning to suspect that all the anti-AZ mutterings have been instigated by other drug manufacturers who dislike having their extortionate business practices and profitability undermined by the not-for-profit model.

And the Tory right wing will feel the same way. Remember that the Telegraph is a right wing megaphone, and triangulate with our revered Prime Minister's recent remarks about greed ...........

[mikeymo]

A piece in the business section of the Daily T suggests that AZ may be regretting the decision to do their vaccine on a not-for-profit basis. They have suffered reputational damage from the bad-mouthing and the share price has taken a hit.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ble-worth/

Yes. Though as a shareholder it doesn't particularly worry me. The long term share price has been good. Like Warren Buffet, my preferred holding period is "forever".

"Reputational damage" is irrelevant most of the time to patients, I expect, at least in the long term. The long term is what drug companies look at.

As they aren't making any money at the moment from the Covid vaccine, it shouldn't make any difference if some people refuse the AZ vaccine and have another one instead. I expect that the knowledge gained through the process of developing and manufacturing the vaccine has now been absorbed by the company, so an increase or decrease in production will simply be a question of scale.

EDIT. Now I've managed to get past the paywall, I've read the Telegraph article. I'm not sure that "public relations disaster" is really the case. As I said, in the long life cycle of drugs research and production, this episode may well fade into "a bit of a spat", forgotten by the vast majority of people. But journalism thrives on making an event "the worst thing EVER!!". And there are all sorts of companies and countries who, according to people who talk about these things, do lots of really bad things. But it rarely has an effect upon the "bottom line". I don't expect many people will stop buying Chinese goods, even if they have a free choice, because of the treatment of the Uighurs, for instance.

[Oldjohnw]

Instead of just reposting quotations, it would be helpful if you explained whatever point you are making, in your own words.

You asked how. I quoted what you said which indicated this.

No you haven't. Explain to me, without using quotations, in what way I am being "disingenuous".

Here goes without quotation marks. You said people are wasting their time because the accepted line here is that everything about the u r o p e o n onion is good, and Boris and the government are just evil Tories. Anything that contradicts that blissful notion will not be tolerated. Including posts that point out the prejudiced nature of many of the posts here, it seems.

That is a misrepresentation. Disingenuous, in fact.

[mikeymo]

You asked how. I quoted what you said which indicated this.

No you haven't. Explain to me, without using quotations, in what way I am being "disingenuous".

Here goes without quotation marks. You said people are wasting their time because the accepted line here is that everything about the u r o p e o n onion is good, and Boris and the government are just evil Tories. Anything that contradicts that blissful notion will not be tolerated. Including posts that point out the prejudiced nature of many of the posts here, it seems.

That is a misrepresentation. Disingenuous, in fact.

I see. Thanks for the attempted clarification.

Unfortunately you can't see the post that proved my last point. Sadly I am now taking screenshots of posts to prove the censorious nature of the moderation here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous

[slowster]

I'm quite happy to make a point. If Brex*it had never happened (and it was only by a narrow margin that it did happen - remember!), Britain would have been on an equal footing with the rest of the EU countries. There would have been no wrangling about exports or imports, or of the differences in cost.

OK it may be that Britain has fared better than its neighbours in terms of vaccine delivery. Is that a situation you relish? Do you have no sympathy for people in mainland Europe who are less fortunate than ourselves? Like the friend of ours in France, in his 80s and not in the best of health, still awaiting his first jab?

So why can't I continue to express my view that Britain should have remained in the EU? My opinion has never faltered. It's not a religion - just my opinion - but I believe it to be the correct opinion.

The implication of your post is that you would have been happy if Britain had been part of the EU vaccine procurement programme, and had experienced the same slow rates of vaccination as EU members, and even more deaths as a result in the third wave. It is precisely because the UK acted differently, and far more pro-actively in coordinating the Oxford/AZ tie up and funding the development of new vaccine production facilities (rather than just sitting at a negotiating table in Brussels with AZ and other pharma companies and talking price and contract terms), that there is now a glaring difference in outcomes, and the incompetence of the EU Commission is exposed by the extra deaths in the EU that are occurring now and will continue to occur for many months.

It seems that you would not mind your friend in France still awaiting his first jab, if 80 year olds in the UK were similarly waiting, and many of them dying while they waited. It seems that would have been a price worth paying to stay in the EU.

[Oldjohnw]

No you haven't. Explain to me, without using quotations, in what way I am being "disingenuous".

Here goes without quotation marks. You said people are wasting their time because the accepted line here is that everything about the u r o p e o n onion is good, and Boris and the government are just evil Tories. Anything that contradicts that blissful notion will not be tolerated. Including posts that point out the prejudiced nature of many of the posts here, it seems.

That is a misrepresentation. Disingenuous, in fact.

I see. Thanks for the attempted clarification.

Unfortunately you can't see the post that proved my last point. Sadly I am now taking screenshots of posts to prove the censorious nature of the moderation here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous

Oh dear. I am not sure what, if anything, I can contribute further.

[kwackers]

It seems that you would not mind your friend in France still awaiting his first jab, if 80 year olds in the UK were similarly waiting, and many of them dying while they waited. It seems that would have been a price worth paying to stay in the EU.

Bit of an exaggeration there methinks.
However you played it it's unlikely we'd have 80 year olds sat waiting for vaccines now.
Plus I personally don't think some arbitrary 80 year old life in blighty is worth more than an arbitrary 80 year olds life in France - perhaps you do?

What you really want is every 80 year old in the world vaccinated, not to deny some 80 year olds the vaccine so we can vaccinate 40 and 50 year olds over here.

Plus I'm not sure we would have had to join the procurement system, my quick google showed no answers.

[Jdsk]

Plus I'm not sure we would have had to join the procurement system, my quick google showed no answers.

I'll come back to that, but basically "No".

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

... I am beginning to suspect that all the anti-AZ mutterings have been instigated by other drug manufacturers who dislike having their extortionate business practices and profitability undermined by the not-for-profit model.

And the Tory right wing will feel the same way. Remember that the Telegraph is a right wing megaphone, and triangulate with our revered Prime Minister's recent remarks about greed ...........

I've no illusions about the political leanings of the Daily Telegraph but the hit to the AZ shares is a fact.

On the subject of Boris Johson's remark about greed, I read with some amusement an analysis by Laura Kuenssberg who explained that he made the comment as the chief whip Mark Spencer sitting next to him was troughing a cheese and pickle sandwich. It seems he's known as Big Farmer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Spen ... politician)

[slowster]

A piece in the business section of the Daily T suggests that AZ may be regretting the decision to do their vaccine on a not-for-profit basis. They have suffered reputational damage from the bad-mouthing and the share price has taken a hit.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ble-worth/

I am beginning to suspect that all the anti-AZ mutterings have been instigated by other drug manufacturers who dislike having their extortionate business practices and profitability undermined by the not-for-profit model.

The other vaccine manufacturers are probably just keeping their heads down and trying to avoid the EU or the US governments targeting them in the media. Pfizer has had major production shortfalls at its EU plant, and were it not for the all the attention on AZ it would have been Pfizer that would have been the target of hostile media briefing and interviews from EU politicians. EU politicians need a scapegoat to deflect blame towards, and whichever drug company is the tallest poppy will be the whipping boy.

Novavax has been delaying signing a contract with the EU for weeks. Every drug company probably now considers the EU to be a likely difficult, even dangerous customer.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-novavax-exclusi-idUSKBN2BH2GY

In contrast the video in this BBC article on the 'fill and finish' facility for AZ vaccine manufactured in the UK included the interesting revelation that the phone call the company MD received out of the blue to undertake the contract was not from anyone in AZ, but from a UK government official.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-56450968

The UK government's involvement in the setting up of AZ's vaccine production in the UK appears to have gone well beyond funding it. The EU could have taken a very similar pro-active approach to working with the vaccine manufacturers, but instead it just prioritised getting contracts signed for the lowest price.

Macron has acknowledged this, but did so by comparing the EU with the USA. He did not have the intellectual honesty to make the comparison with the UK instead.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-emmanuel-macron-says-the-eu-failed-to-shoot-for-the-stars-over-vaccine-rollouts-12256479

[philg]

A piece in the business section of the Daily T suggests that AZ may be regretting the decision to do their vaccine on a not-for-profit basis. They have suffered reputational damage from the bad-mouthing and the share price has taken a hit.

I am beginning to suspect that all the anti-AZ mutterings have been instigated by other drug manufacturers who dislike having their extortionate business practices and profitability undermined by the not-for-profit model.

And the Tory right wing will feel the same way. Remember that the Telegraph is a right wing megaphone, and triangulate with our revered Prime Minister's recent remarks about greed ...........

Here is a similar story from a presumably more acceptable organ
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... r-disaster

As they say 'No good deed goes unpunished'

[Psamathe]

...Novavax has been delaying signing a contract with the EU for weeks. Every drug company probably now considers the EU to be a likely difficult, even dangerous customer.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-novavax-exclusi-idUSKBN2BH2GY
...

I'd not heard that (and not read the article yet) but something I hypothesised about earlier in the thread (the "they might win the battle [with AZ] but lose the war"). I'm sure AZ will have learnt their lesson and can undoubtedly sell all the vaccine they produce at cost elsewhere in the world so once the current contract fulfilled I suspect the EU will find either no next one or a really long negotiation before the possibility of an expensive and tright contract (in AZ's favour).

The problem is it's a few EU politicians that are messing up yet the entire EU population suffering through their shortcomings. But maybe that's politics - we've suffered the stupidity of our leader.

Ian

[mikeymo]

Here goes without quotation marks. You said people are wasting their time because the accepted line here is that everything about the u r o p e o n onion is good, and Boris and the government are just evil Tories. Anything that contradicts that blissful notion will not be tolerated. Including posts that point out the prejudiced nature of many of the posts here, it seems.

That is a misrepresentation. Disingenuous, in fact.

I see. Thanks for the attempted clarification.

Unfortunately you can't see the post that proved my last point. Sadly I am now taking screenshots of posts to prove the censorious nature of the moderation here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous

Oh dear. I am not sure what, if anything, I can contribute further.

Maybe read the linked definition of "disingenuous"?

[mikeymo]

Novavax has been delaying signing a contract with the EU for weeks. Every drug company probably now considers the EU to be a likely difficult, even dangerous customer.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-novavax-exclusi-idUSKBN2BH2GY

So let's compare and contrast. From the article linked to above:

"Novavax concluded exploratory talks with the EU in mid-December, a step that has usually been followed by the signature of a contract within two or three months, according to EU deals with other COVID-19 vaccine makers."

Whereas:

https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/novavax-and-uk-government-announce-collaboration-and-purchase

"GAITHERSBURG, Md., Aug. 14, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Novavax, Inc. (Nasdaq: NVAX), a late stage biotechnology company developing next-generation vaccines for serious infectious diseases, today announced it has signed a Heads of Terms (Term Sheet) with the Government of the United Kingdom (UK) for the purchase of 60 million doses of NVX-CoV2373, Novavax’ COVID-19 vaccine, and a Phase 3 clinical trial to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in the UK population."

That's 4 months earlier.

Notwithstanding that a Heads of Terms isn't legally binding, the pattern is clear. The UK government engaged with drugs companies sooner, and more seriously, than the EU did.