4 ms·

A significant part of the vaccines the UK has administered were produced in EU factories. Now that the EU tries to do the same as countries like the UK and the

by matzab 6y ago

A significant part of the vaccines the UK has administered were produced in EU factories. Now that the EU tries to do the same as countries like the UK and the US do - not exporting - they are bullies? Right.

DrBazza 6y ago
> A significant part of the vaccines the UK has administered were produced in EU factories Yes, and those vaccines are, or were, only approved for use in the UK, the EU, only yesterday finally approved the AZ vaccine, 3 months after the UK. So who else are the pharma companies going to ship those vaccines to, when the shelf life is weeks or months? There is a global supply chain at work here, from the substances for the vaccines, to the equipment, and even skilled labour used to produce them. Very little of that, if any, is subject to export bans. The UK does not have an export ban on vaccines. The EU is free to sign contracts with any vaccine supplier in the UK. But history seems to be repeating itself again. The EU hasn't signed with Novavax, who have just passed trials. The UK signed 5 months ago, and it will be produced in NE England. [0] 0. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1390787/EU-vaccine-deal-novavax-stock-astrazeneca-contract-eu-novavax-vaccine-uk-covid https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1390787/EU-vaccine-deal...
- libertine 6y ago
  Approval doesn't matter when AZ has to build stock to meet deadlines. Basically they weren't building stock to fulfill UK orders, from EU based production. It takes months to build stock, but they were flushing that stock to UK.
  - DrBazza 6y ago
    > Approval doesn't matter when AZ has to build stock to meet deadlines. Basically they weren't building stock to fulfill UK orders, from EU based production. Vaccine delivery, like pretty much everything else, is just-in-time delivery. They haven't been building stocks. They've been manufacturing vaccines and shipping them straight out as they have signed contracts with many other countries other than the UK. Demand is outstripping supply. The EU's argument, which is well documented in the press, is that they've promised about 300 million Euros to AZ to build up capacity, only a small amount of which they've paid AZ. It is also well documented that it takes time to get a vaccine manufacturing plant working at close to 100% yield, something even the UK plant hasn't achieved. It's simply the case that the EU should have agreed and paid sooner so that AZ could have invested that money in the EU plants sooner. All of this is covered in the 'best reasonable efforts' parts of the contract. > It takes months to build stock, but they were flushing that stock to UK. Evidence? As far as I can see in the press, the AZ doses in the UK are coming from the AZ manufacturing plants in the UK, and it is vdL / the EU that is demanding that AZ doses in the UK are diverted to the EU to make up the current shortfall in EU manufacturing.
    - libertine 6y ago
      >Vaccine delivery, like pretty much everything else, is just-in-time delivery. They haven't been building stocks. They've been manufacturing vaccines and shipping them straight out as they have signed contracts with many other countries other than the UK. Demand is outstripping supply. Vaccine production started before any country gave any approval, it's well documented that it started in 5th JUNE 2020, so I don't quite get what you're saying. If it took Europe 4 more weeks to approve a vaccine all the stock produced until that point should have been flushed to countries who approved it before, even though the production started way before anyone approved - so they take advantage of stock build up, but Europe doesn't because? >The EU's argument, which is well documented in the press, is that they've promised about 300 million Euros to AZ to build up capacity, only a small amount of which they've paid AZ. It is also well documented that it takes time to get a vaccine manufacturing plant working at close to 100% yield, something even the UK plant hasn't achieved. It's simply the case that the EU should have agreed and paid sooner so that AZ could have invested that money in the EU plants sooner. All of this is covered in the 'best reasonable efforts' parts of the contract. Again, something doesn't add up - it's well documented that it was EUROPEAN factories in the Netherlands and Germany that produced the first batches of AZ vaccines for the UK. So even before UK has any production capacity they are already taking advantage of Europe capacity of production financed by EU. Basically the UK took advantage of EU capacity, and EU didn't get anything out of their investment? And now that UK has some capacity, all of it will be for UK, and EU should keep investing to make vaccines for UK and the rest of the world, while AZ is failing to fulfill orders. This is weird, no? >Evidence? As far as I can see in the press, the AZ doses in the UK are coming from the AZ manufacturing plants in the UK, and it is vdL / the EU that is demanding that AZ doses in the UK are diverted to the EU to make up the current shortfall in EU manufacturing. It's well documented in the media, quote: "Ian McCubbin, the manufacturing lead for the UK's Vaccine Taskforce said that the “vast majority” of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine will be manufactured in the UK. AstraZeneca also has some plants in Europe, with sites in Germany and the Netherlands producing the jab - these were the first to be rolled out in the UK." Source: https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/uk-factories-making-astrazeneca-vaccine-19708380 https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/uk-factories-m...
      - 6y ago
makomk 6y ago
The two different vaccines the UK has administered had different contractual and manufacturing arrangements - the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine has separate manufacturing facilities for the UK and the EU, with each being contractually tied to the supply of vaccines for that area, whereas the Pfizer/BioNTech one both contracted for supply for the same manufacturing facility. As I understand it, the UK wanted at least one locally manufactured vaccine as a precaution in case Trump went and banned exports (and I suspect the EU also wanted theirs manufactured locally for the usual reasons).

by matzab 6y ago

DrBazza 6y ago

> A significant part of the vaccines the UK has administered were produced in EU factories Yes, and those vaccines are, or were, only approved for use in the UK, the EU, only yesterday finally approved the AZ vaccine, 3 months after the UK. So who else are the pharma companies going to ship those vaccines to, when the shelf life is weeks or months? There is a global supply chain at work here, from the substances for the vaccines, to the equipment, and even skilled labour used to produce them. Very little of that, if any, is subject to export bans. The UK does not have an export ban on vaccines. The EU is free to sign contracts with any vaccine supplier in the UK. But history seems to be repeating itself again. The EU hasn't signed with Novavax, who have just passed trials. The UK signed 5 months ago, and it will be produced in NE England. [0] 0. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1390787/EU-vaccine-deal-novavax-stock-astrazeneca-contract-eu-novavax-vaccine-uk-covid https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1390787/EU-vaccine-deal...

libertine 6y ago
Approval doesn't matter when AZ has to build stock to meet deadlines. Basically they weren't building stock to fulfill UK orders, from EU based production. It takes months to build stock, but they were flushing that stock to UK.
- DrBazza 6y ago
  > Approval doesn't matter when AZ has to build stock to meet deadlines. Basically they weren't building stock to fulfill UK orders, from EU based production. Vaccine delivery, like pretty much everything else, is just-in-time delivery. They haven't been building stocks. They've been manufacturing vaccines and shipping them straight out as they have signed contracts with many other countries other than the UK. Demand is outstripping supply. The EU's argument, which is well documented in the press, is that they've promised about 300 million Euros to AZ to build up capacity, only a small amount of which they've paid AZ. It is also well documented that it takes time to get a vaccine manufacturing plant working at close to 100% yield, something even the UK plant hasn't achieved. It's simply the case that the EU should have agreed and paid sooner so that AZ could have invested that money in the EU plants sooner. All of this is covered in the 'best reasonable efforts' parts of the contract. > It takes months to build stock, but they were flushing that stock to UK. Evidence? As far as I can see in the press, the AZ doses in the UK are coming from the AZ manufacturing plants in the UK, and it is vdL / the EU that is demanding that AZ doses in the UK are diverted to the EU to make up the current shortfall in EU manufacturing.
  - libertine 6y ago
    >Vaccine delivery, like pretty much everything else, is just-in-time delivery. They haven't been building stocks. They've been manufacturing vaccines and shipping them straight out as they have signed contracts with many other countries other than the UK. Demand is outstripping supply. Vaccine production started before any country gave any approval, it's well documented that it started in 5th JUNE 2020, so I don't quite get what you're saying. If it took Europe 4 more weeks to approve a vaccine all the stock produced until that point should have been flushed to countries who approved it before, even though the production started way before anyone approved - so they take advantage of stock build up, but Europe doesn't because? >The EU's argument, which is well documented in the press, is that they've promised about 300 million Euros to AZ to build up capacity, only a small amount of which they've paid AZ. It is also well documented that it takes time to get a vaccine manufacturing plant working at close to 100% yield, something even the UK plant hasn't achieved. It's simply the case that the EU should have agreed and paid sooner so that AZ could have invested that money in the EU plants sooner. All of this is covered in the 'best reasonable efforts' parts of the contract. Again, something doesn't add up - it's well documented that it was EUROPEAN factories in the Netherlands and Germany that produced the first batches of AZ vaccines for the UK. So even before UK has any production capacity they are already taking advantage of Europe capacity of production financed by EU. Basically the UK took advantage of EU capacity, and EU didn't get anything out of their investment? And now that UK has some capacity, all of it will be for UK, and EU should keep investing to make vaccines for UK and the rest of the world, while AZ is failing to fulfill orders. This is weird, no? >Evidence? As far as I can see in the press, the AZ doses in the UK are coming from the AZ manufacturing plants in the UK, and it is vdL / the EU that is demanding that AZ doses in the UK are diverted to the EU to make up the current shortfall in EU manufacturing. It's well documented in the media, quote: "Ian McCubbin, the manufacturing lead for the UK's Vaccine Taskforce said that the “vast majority” of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine will be manufactured in the UK. AstraZeneca also has some plants in Europe, with sites in Germany and the Netherlands producing the jab - these were the first to be rolled out in the UK." Source: https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/uk-factories-making-astrazeneca-vaccine-19708380 https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/uk-factories-m...
    - 6y ago

makomk 6y ago

The two different vaccines the UK has administered had different contractual and manufacturing arrangements - the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine has separate manufacturing facilities for the UK and the EU, with each being contractually tied to the supply of vaccines for that area, whereas the Pfizer/BioNTech one both contracted for supply for the same manufacturing facility. As I understand it, the UK wanted at least one locally manufactured vaccine as a precaution in case Trump went and banned exports (and I suspect the EU also wanted theirs manufactured locally for the usual reasons).