7 ms·

EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

39 points by reddotX 5y ago

throwaway10110 5y ago
To be honest here in Ireland where majority of vaccinations have been Pfizer people seemed to stop caring about AZ and there is a sizeable chunk of people who are refusing AZ (my own elderly parents and their siblings really scared now and in despair) due to issues recently highlighted (dont shoot messenger, imho risks are small but i can see why some might be hesitant when alternatives are/will be available) I say the brand damage to AZ due to their own production issues, Oxford due to what seems to be dodgy research trials (still not approved by FDA) and UK where politicians wrapped the vaccine in union jack and hitched it to Brexit bandwagon for jignoistic reasons, means this vaccine is now tainted in peoples eyes with negative associations. Which is a pitty but i see both sides of arguments. TL.DR a month ago i predicted it be pretty much unusable in europe and thats more or less case. As for AZ if they have broken contracts then yes failure should be punished in courts, but IMNAL! for population at large what matters more is that better vaccines are available faster and this vaccine doesnt lead to further hesitancy.
- nailer 5y ago
  But the other vaccines also slightly elevate the chance of blood clotting. To less than the elevation caused by the contraceptive pill.
  - carlmr 5y ago
    The way I understood it these blood clots are a different kind of blood clot, and almost always deadly. But the amounts of "accepted" blood clots with the contraceptive pill are quite horrific.
    - jamsiedaly 5y ago
      I believe a lot of people are missing the point here that you can choose whether or not to the take the pill. Many women I know choose not to take it because of health side effects. The issue of side effects with vaccines is a lot of people feel like they are being coerced through talk of vaccine passports and other measures.
    - zpeti 5y ago
      The vaccine clots killed 19/76 cases or something like that in the last report, so not exactly “always deadly”
  - throwaway10110 5y ago
    ---
    - zpeti 5y ago
      Why not mention the very negative mentions of AZ by macron and merkel? Macron even wanted to stop all foreign vaccines and rely on some French one. I have no love for Putin or Johnson but this most certainly wasn’t down to just their politics. EU leaders are massively at fault here with their rhetoric too.
      - rsynnott 5y ago
        This is your brain on the Daily Mail, I think... There is no approved French vaccine.
        zpeti 5y ago
        Macron wanted to use this vaccine as a matter of national pride. He talked down Astrazeneca because of it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/french-self-esteem-hit-after-pasteur-institute-abandons-covid-vaccine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/french-self-es... Things have changed a lot since then, it's been forgotten.
        rsynnott 5y ago
        I'm not sure how you're getting that from that article (which doesn't even _mention_ AZ). If France had wanted to specifically use a French vaccine it would presumably have pursued an independent purchasing model, like the UK and Hungary.
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  I'm still waiting too see long term effects of all adenovirus based vaccines. I'm kinda estimating there to be an increased risk of strokes overall. But I'm constantly baffled at Germany's vaccine response. Remember that Pfizer's vaccine is developed by the German company and that the president of the European commission used to be Germany's Minister of Family/Labour and Defense. But in a way that's a result of their arrogance, so well deserved in a way. EDIT: Wow, the responses are seriously out of this world. The German health minister fumbled ordering fast testing kits. In fact Aldi, Germany's biggest cheap supermarket chain started distributing testing kits faster than the German government[1]. They fumbled through the mask ordering and distribution and by inventing a super complicated voucher that was delayed many times to allow for cheap masks[2]. One of Germanies most important health care organizations leaderships told people to make sure they know there is no mask mandate in the office[3], and that a running nose is not a reason to stay home. This is while there were statewide mask mandates and work at home encouragement elsewhere. You're right that it doesn't matter where BioNtech is from. What does matter however is that they are considered more safe than any of the other vaccines, and that they delivered hundreds of millions of vaccines to the US and elsewhere. Let's stop pretending that Germany didn't fumbled through every step of the pandemic, they bought AZ because it was cheap not out of solidarity to the US. They made the rules for the EU and are now looking at AZ as the scapegoat. Did you guys already forget the Luca app nightmare? [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-health-minister-jens-spahn-rapid-coronavirus-tests/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-health-minister-jens... [2] https://tkare.de/en/berechtigungsschein-the-new-voucher-for-obtaining-ffp2-masks/ https://tkare.de/en/berechtigungsschein-the-new-voucher-for-... [3] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2021-04/kassenaerztliche-vereinigung-pandemiebekaempfung-impfzentrum-infektionsschutz-maskenpflicht-kritik https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2021-04/kassenaerztl...
  - detaro 5y ago
    Where it was invented is totally irrelevant to public discourse outside the UK.
  - throw-8462682 5y ago
    Adenovirus vaccines are extremely common. You must be anti vax?
- detaro 5y ago
  It's split: Hesitation is for sure here, on the other hand plenty people in age ranges its not recommended for here decide to get it anyways. (Here in Germany its not recommended for <60, but not forbidden to be used)
  - corty 5y ago
    Yes, but if anything should happen to you because of a non-recommended vaccine you are on your own for treatment and disability pay.
    - wwosik 5y ago
      in the US maybe?
      - corty 5y ago
        No, Germany: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/__60.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/__60.html Don't know about the US situation.
        raverbashing 5y ago
        I'm reading this but the "non-recommended" part is kinda tricky. It would be one thing to, let's say, get vaccinated with a non-approved vaccine and claim damage, otherwise, unless, let's say AZ is excluded and maybe simply not "preferred" then it should be ok - as per 1. 1. which ok uses "empfohlen" (recommended/endorsed) so maybe it could be argued but I think it's more in favour of being in the scope rather than not
        corty 5y ago
        The "empfohlen" (recommended) in the law is usually fulfilled by the vaccination being officially recommended in the vaccination list by the STIKO of the RKI (roughly the vaccine working group of the German disease control office). But the STIKO very explicitly does not recommend AZ under the age of 60. The Laender (states) may also recommend a vaccine, deviating from the federal STIKO recommendation. But they didn't really do that either, the wording is always very unclear and weasely around AZ. In several press statements, the phrase "auf eigene Gefahr" (at your own peril) has also occured. So I would wait for a clarification. Edit: medical professionals seem similarly confused about the matter, KVNO is very roughly speaking a doctors guild: https://coronavirus.nrw/haftungsausschluss-bei-impfung-mit-astrazeneca-bei-unter-60-jaehrigen-angemahnt/ https://coronavirus.nrw/haftungsausschluss-bei-impfung-mit-a...
- jpxw 5y ago
  In my opinion, the media and European politicians are responsible for this vaccine skepticism. You reap what you sow. The politicians banned the vaccine despite there not being scientific evidence to suggest that was a reasonable choice. The media in Europe hyped this up massively. In the UK, neither of these things happened, and despite there being some degree of skepticism, the vast majority of people are still willing to have the AZ jab.
  - throwaway10110 5y ago
    Under 30s in UK are not recommended AZ jab Its same in other countries ranging from no restriction to restriction being to anything up to under 60s not recommended is not same as "banned" stop reading UK tabloids.
    - jpxw 5y ago
      Hang on, I don’t think it’s “not recommended” to under 30s. I think under 30s are just given the choice of an alternative vaccine, if they’d like it. In many EU countries, the vaccine was banned for large segments of the population for extended periods of time.
      - Sosh101 5y ago
        > In many EU countries, the vaccine was banned for large segments of the population for extended periods of time. Also happened in Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Norway, Iceland, and some African countries.
        jpxw 5y ago
        Yes, and it was just as incorrect/unscientific in those places too, but we’re discussing the EU here.
        Sosh101 5y ago
        > but we’re discussing the EU here. Yes I know. You seem to be insinuating that it's all the EUs fault, and so I wanted to provide a bit of perspective.
- gnfargbl 5y ago
  > UK where politicians wrapped the vaccine in union jack and hitched it to Brexit bandwagon for jignoistic reasons Something I have learnt from the whole AZ business is how much media bias affects your thought process, even on topics which appear to be reported relatively neutrally. Here in the UK, the implicit messaging I've picked up from the media is that EU politicians have been briefing against AZ in order to discredit Brexit. One (fairly similar) country over, and you've received entirely the opposite message.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  > To be honest here in Ireland where majority of vaccinations have been Pfizer people seemed to stop caring about AZ That's the case now that Pfizer supply has been ramped up, but our vaccine program would be far more progressed if AZ had delivered. Ireland was supposed to get about 1 million AZ doses in Q1, 3 million by end of Q2. Actual number delivered so far is more like 300k.
jarmitage 5y ago
Does anyone know why all of the geopolitical discourse in the UK and Europe has been around arguing over a small supply, rather than about increasing manufacturing capacity?
- Slartie 5y ago
  Increasing manufacturing capacity is happening. BioNTech as the most important producer in Europe has brought multiple additional partners into production as well as an entire new plant, which by itself is churning out 1 billion doses per year when fully operational (they're still scaling up production there AFAIK, but have been shipping doses from there since April). Also, the CureVac vaccine is expected to be authorized in the near future, and manufacturing capacity for that one is being prepared right now, also through manufacturing partnerships within Europe. But the thing is: while EU agencies like the EMA are involved in these processes, and also monetary grants to finance production increases have been provided in several cases, the EU has a limited number of actions available to "increase manufacturing capacity", especially in the short term (the new BioNTech plant for example was already bought in September, so it took over half a year to get it retrofitted for production). We cannot simply - like the US or UK - declare that everything produced within the EU stays within the EU, with no exceptions. Or well, technically we could, and that would certainly increase the supply in the EU in the short term, but that would have geopolitical repercussions that might in the worst case damage the EU's vaccine production in the long term (because it is at least partially dependent on pre-products sourced from outside the EU), but will for sure cause a lot of damage in international relations. The EU is effectively the world's biggest vaccine exporter in terms of doses, especially when you focus on the mRNA vaccines which have the highest efficacy and least complications and are thus the most sought-after. Limited to just that class of vaccines, the EU even is the single relevant source right now. The epic fuck-up of the EU body that was responsible for ordering the vaccines in the first place might in the end turn out to be a bad thing for us EU citizens because of slower vaccination, but a good thing for geopolitical relations/tensions as a whole. That's because this fuck-up kind of deters the EU from taking the same isolationist "our citizens first" stance that the US took - politically such a move would now clearly be regarded as a cheap and, most importantly, illegitimate attempt to fix the failure of negotiating proper and broad supply contracts with manufacturers using brute political force, and that effectively stops the EU from taking this step, even if it would technically be a possibility. As a result, all the countries in the world without significant mRNA vaccine production capabilities on their territories at least have realistic access to a single source for their imports, as long as they negotiated supply contracts with the manufacturers early enough. This situation has for example been the key enabler for the huge success of the Israeli's highly acclaimed vaccination campaign, which was powered by vaccine supply from Europe.
jpxw 5y ago
This is the contract in case anyone wants to read it: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/867990/APA%20-%20AstraZeneca.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attach...
throw-8462682 5y ago
At this point, AZ must really regret having gone down the road of working with Oxford to supply a Covid vaccine. They are not even making money off it at the moment. Pfizer on the other hand hit gold with their BioNTech collaboration. They are making 10+ B this year and probably even more in brand value. AZ on the other hand lost billions of brand value. Is there a morale of this story?
- _Microft 5y ago
  I bet a lot of people will hate to hear that but I think the morale of the story is "Don't overpromise and underdeliver".
  - sschueller 5y ago
    So far that hasn't hurt Elon Musk a bit...
- thomasahle 5y ago
  High risks, high rewards?
- rsynnott 5y ago
  The moral of the story is, don't contract to deliver 100 million widgets in a quarter and then actually deliver 30 million widgets. It's pretty simple; remove the vaccine context and there's nothing at all controversial going on here. Missing production forecasts is one thing, but missing them by this much is unusual and will usually result in trouble for the manufacturer. Really, I'd say it's more the case that Oxford is regretting working with AZ, rather than a more established vaccine manufacturer.
  - PunchTornado 5y ago
    also don't fulfil 1 contract at 100% and another one at 30%..
stupidcar 5y ago
A couple of months ago Politico also reported that the EU had waived its right to sue in the AZ contract[1], so what gives? Would it kill Politico to give some additional context when a story seems to blatantly contradict its own reporting? [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-europe-commission-contract-astrazeneca-ties-hands-lawsuits/ https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-europe-c...
- throwaway10110 5y ago
  Apples vs oranges comparison you made, they probably given indemnity in case of unknown sideefects as other vaccines were given in europe, us etc This seems to be a contractual dispute.
  - stupidcar 5y ago
    Why didn't you read the article I linked? It says: "The contract makes clear the Commission and EU countries can't sue the drugmaker for a host of issues, most notably if there are 'delays in delivery of the Vaccine under this Agreement.'"
codebeaker 5y ago
Sorry if this is considered off-topic, but I mus thave surely missed something about why AstraZeneca is seemingly the only choice on the vaccine market. I am German, we developed the Pfizer vaccine, but there is _no_ news about it, it seems like the AZ vaccine is the only option. Is it a case that Pfizer wasn't viable, wasn't used here, or only made lucrative contracts with other countries, or is it being used, quietly without drama because they are fulfilling their obligations, unlike AZ who seems to be in the news every day. I celebrated the success of the scientists (Turkish immigrants) who developed it, after the waves and waves of racism in Germany, having immigrants develop a vaccine helped vindicate some of our nation's political decisions to open the doors and borders, that we do in fact benefit, and, sadly now they seem to be invisible again.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hef19898 5y ago
  There are a couple, Moderna, Pfizer/Biontech, Johnson&Johnson, AZ and Curevac (soon to be approved as it seems). AZ is the cheapest one (Oxford has them selling at cost so far) and was seen as the most promising last summer. AZ is getting a shit loaf of bad press, so everything AZ related is "news". All vaccines are effective and working, Pfizer as well as AZ.
- detaro 5y ago
  What? The Biontech-vaccine is mentioned all the time in news about vaccination progress and vaccine distribution. I really wonder how you could have gotten the impression that it isn't used.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  I can't remember exact values but my guess is this friction comes from the price point. AZ was negotiated at something like less than 2 euros per shot for EU markets, and the Pfizer contracts varied wildly for different countries but it was negotiated at about 15 euros per shot for EU. With my cynical hat on if you are having to vaccinate millions that order of magnitude difference probably matters. What I haven't seen anyone discuss at the EC level is what would be the maths of just paying premium Israel prices for the Pfizer vaccine? Would the economic benefits of get out of this mess as quickly as possible outweigh the extra euros per shot spent on vaccination. My guess is it would likely pay off but then again I am not a European Commissioner.
JI00912 5y ago
> the point of the legal proceedings is to make it mandatory for AstraZeneca to provide the doses set out in its EU contract The point of a contract is always that fulfilling the contract is mandatory. That said, legal proceedings won't make anything go faster any more than other attempts at what sounds like plan economy.
- zpeti 5y ago
  As far as I understand it the levels of what “mandatory” mean were different in the Uk contract to the eu one. So it’s not quite true that that’s always the point, there are shades of gray which is exactly where this went wrong.
- throwaway10110 5y ago
  ---
- mort96 5y ago
  I don't understand how you could possibly call this an attempt at plan economy, unless you consider all solicitation of a product by a government to be plan economy? How is this fundamentally any different from the US's purchasing of doses from BioNTech/Pfizer? I'm sure the US would take legal action against Pfizer if they weren't delivering doses according to the agreement?
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    > How is this fundamentally any different from the US's purchasing of doses from BioNTech/Pfizer? It isn't. It's just that "euroskeptics" will distort arguments for the sole purpose of hating and dividing
    - JI00912 5y ago
      You're spreading prejudice, conspiracy theories and hatred.
  - JI00912 5y ago
    Because the doses provided are a function of how well the tool chain works and not of weather or not they have to meet a particular target or at what level the target is set.
jolts 5y ago
I thought maybe people getting blood clots and dropping like flies in parking lots would be more worrying than not getting enough but ok..
- ben_w 5y ago
  It’s something like a thousand times less dangerous than the virus — 4 or 5 per million for the vaccine, 1 to 10 per thousand for the disease. (And COVID deaths staying that low assumes we continue to prevent the instantaneous case load exceeding the capacity of the health care system, which is hard enough when we can tell people a vaccine is coming and they just need to wait for it).
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    You really do have to segment by age groups when doing this analysis.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Would it change the conclusion? I can’t find good age-specific fatality rates for either thanks to all the search results being polluted with news about controversy rather than actual science, but the baseline pre-COVID stats I’ve seen for the incidence rate of venous thromboembolism in the USA is 30/100k/y in 25-35 year olds and 300-500/100k/y in 70-79 year olds. Again, that’s the rate it was happening already (well, in 2003), no vaccine and no pandemic. This doesn’t seem enough to counteract the roughly one thousand-fold decrease in risk of being vaccinated relative to not being vaccinated. In any case, this isn’t “people getting blood clots and dropping like flies in parking lots”. I’m old enough to remember when deep vein thrombosis was all over the news, convincing people to buy special socks for long-haul flights.
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        I meant when comparing it to how deadly the virus is. The virus might be 1000x more deadly for the average person, but that's grouping 20 year-olds with 85 year-olds.
blfr 5y ago
The quality of leadership has really declined. Western countries seem to be run exclusively by petty managers. There's almost no "we shall fight them on the beaches" or "not because they are easy but because they are hard" and way more process, lawsuits, committees, etc. As it turns out, you need some charisma and vision to effectively do things.
- rvieira 5y ago
  I honestly don't understand your comment. "we shall fight them on the beaches" is war-time motivational speech. We live in peace-time (in Europe at least). In a stable, peace-time society, disputes are solved in courts.
  - blfr 5y ago
    An acute crisis requires a different mindset. When you shut down half of your economy, introduce curfew, try to keep people in their homes, and plenty of people are also dying, you're not at war but it's not quite peacetime either. https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2021/04/06/scientists-against-time/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2021/04/06/scientists-against...
    - rvieira 5y ago
      "we shall fight them on the beaches" was not about metaphorical war. I was about real war, with real bombs falling and real enemy boots ready to invade. The above post is about a contractual dispute, for which a lawsuit is the obvious path. I still don't understand what you'd expect.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    I got the spirit of the comment. At the beginning of the pandemic, there should've been overwhelming support for therapeutics and vaccines. Multiple countries should've been preparing manufacturing facilities well in advance, and those that couldn't should've been scrambling to order from every vendor just in case. A "war effort" if you will. Instead we got a very inward and reactionary response (lockdowns etc) but lacked that longer term visionary response which required foresight of only six months. The following is my speculation, but - it's probably a consequence of having mostly lawyers in charge, and having elected representatives rather far removed from a direct democratic vote as in the case of the EU (although non-EU countries mostly responded in the same way by ignoring therapeutics and vaccines too)
throwaway4good 5y ago
The EU is hitting top bureaucratic legalize idiocy. Who cares if AZ breached the contract if it takes years of legal battle to find out? The EU needs to focus on getting more vaccines. I would suggest to start trail/approval processes for the vaccines from Russia and China. In particular China has shown the capacity and a willingness to export. So let's eat our pride and focus on getting the pandemic under control.
- mort96 5y ago
  So, it's totally possible that the EU isn't doing enough to approve alternative vaccines, I don't know. But dude, the EU is huge. They're capable of pursuing multiple avenues at once. I don't understand why they shouldn't try to get more doses from AZ _at the same time as_ trying to approve and procure vaccines from other sources. It's not one or the other.
  - throwaway4good 5y ago
    Sure. I am just frustrated like probably so many other Europeans on EU's handling of this. To me EU has been naive and unable to protect the interests and lives of Europeans when other countries went for war-like export controls and aggressive poaching of vaccine companies / resources. I have posted this before: https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 https://www.axios.com/countries-producing-most-coronavirus-vaccines-bda9794a-619d-4b8f-a620-b563421d4459.html https://www.axios.com/countries-producing-most-coronavirus-v...

39 points by reddotX 5y ago

To be honest here in Ireland where majority of vaccinations have been Pfizer people seemed to stop caring about AZ and there is a sizeable chunk of people who are refusing AZ (my own elderly parents and their siblings really scared now and in despair) due to issues recently highlighted (dont shoot messenger, imho risks are small but i can see why some might be hesitant when alternatives are/will be available) I say the brand damage to AZ due to their own production issues, Oxford due to what seems to be dodgy research trials (still not approved by FDA) and UK where politicians wrapped the vaccine in union jack and hitched it to Brexit bandwagon for jignoistic reasons, means this vaccine is now tainted in peoples eyes with negative associations. Which is a pitty but i see both sides of arguments. TL.DR a month ago i predicted it be pretty much unusable in europe and thats more or less case. As for AZ if they have broken contracts then yes failure should be punished in courts, but IMNAL! for population at large what matters more is that better vaccines are available faster and this vaccine doesnt lead to further hesitancy.

nailer 5y ago
But the other vaccines also slightly elevate the chance of blood clotting. To less than the elevation caused by the contraceptive pill.
- carlmr 5y ago
  The way I understood it these blood clots are a different kind of blood clot, and almost always deadly. But the amounts of "accepted" blood clots with the contraceptive pill are quite horrific.
  - jamsiedaly 5y ago
    I believe a lot of people are missing the point here that you can choose whether or not to the take the pill. Many women I know choose not to take it because of health side effects. The issue of side effects with vaccines is a lot of people feel like they are being coerced through talk of vaccine passports and other measures.
  - zpeti 5y ago
    The vaccine clots killed 19/76 cases or something like that in the last report, so not exactly “always deadly”
- throwaway10110 5y ago
  ---
  - zpeti 5y ago
    Why not mention the very negative mentions of AZ by macron and merkel? Macron even wanted to stop all foreign vaccines and rely on some French one. I have no love for Putin or Johnson but this most certainly wasn’t down to just their politics. EU leaders are massively at fault here with their rhetoric too.
    - rsynnott 5y ago
      This is your brain on the Daily Mail, I think... There is no approved French vaccine.
      - zpeti 5y ago
        Macron wanted to use this vaccine as a matter of national pride. He talked down Astrazeneca because of it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/french-self-esteem-hit-after-pasteur-institute-abandons-covid-vaccine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/french-self-es... Things have changed a lot since then, it's been forgotten.
        rsynnott 5y ago
        I'm not sure how you're getting that from that article (which doesn't even _mention_ AZ). If France had wanted to specifically use a French vaccine it would presumably have pursued an independent purchasing model, like the UK and Hungary.
rjzzleep 5y ago
I'm still waiting too see long term effects of all adenovirus based vaccines. I'm kinda estimating there to be an increased risk of strokes overall. But I'm constantly baffled at Germany's vaccine response. Remember that Pfizer's vaccine is developed by the German company and that the president of the European commission used to be Germany's Minister of Family/Labour and Defense. But in a way that's a result of their arrogance, so well deserved in a way. EDIT: Wow, the responses are seriously out of this world. The German health minister fumbled ordering fast testing kits. In fact Aldi, Germany's biggest cheap supermarket chain started distributing testing kits faster than the German government[1]. They fumbled through the mask ordering and distribution and by inventing a super complicated voucher that was delayed many times to allow for cheap masks[2]. One of Germanies most important health care organizations leaderships told people to make sure they know there is no mask mandate in the office[3], and that a running nose is not a reason to stay home. This is while there were statewide mask mandates and work at home encouragement elsewhere. You're right that it doesn't matter where BioNtech is from. What does matter however is that they are considered more safe than any of the other vaccines, and that they delivered hundreds of millions of vaccines to the US and elsewhere. Let's stop pretending that Germany didn't fumbled through every step of the pandemic, they bought AZ because it was cheap not out of solidarity to the US. They made the rules for the EU and are now looking at AZ as the scapegoat. Did you guys already forget the Luca app nightmare? [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-health-minister-jens-spahn-rapid-coronavirus-tests/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-health-minister-jens... [2] https://tkare.de/en/berechtigungsschein-the-new-voucher-for-obtaining-ffp2-masks/ https://tkare.de/en/berechtigungsschein-the-new-voucher-for-... [3] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2021-04/kassenaerztliche-vereinigung-pandemiebekaempfung-impfzentrum-infektionsschutz-maskenpflicht-kritik https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2021-04/kassenaerztl...
- detaro 5y ago
  Where it was invented is totally irrelevant to public discourse outside the UK.
- throw-8462682 5y ago
  Adenovirus vaccines are extremely common. You must be anti vax?
detaro 5y ago
It's split: Hesitation is for sure here, on the other hand plenty people in age ranges its not recommended for here decide to get it anyways. (Here in Germany its not recommended for <60, but not forbidden to be used)
- corty 5y ago
  Yes, but if anything should happen to you because of a non-recommended vaccine you are on your own for treatment and disability pay.
  - wwosik 5y ago
    in the US maybe?
    - corty 5y ago
      No, Germany: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/__60.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/__60.html Don't know about the US situation.
      - raverbashing 5y ago
        I'm reading this but the "non-recommended" part is kinda tricky. It would be one thing to, let's say, get vaccinated with a non-approved vaccine and claim damage, otherwise, unless, let's say AZ is excluded and maybe simply not "preferred" then it should be ok - as per 1. 1. which ok uses "empfohlen" (recommended/endorsed) so maybe it could be argued but I think it's more in favour of being in the scope rather than not
        corty 5y ago
        The "empfohlen" (recommended) in the law is usually fulfilled by the vaccination being officially recommended in the vaccination list by the STIKO of the RKI (roughly the vaccine working group of the German disease control office). But the STIKO very explicitly does not recommend AZ under the age of 60. The Laender (states) may also recommend a vaccine, deviating from the federal STIKO recommendation. But they didn't really do that either, the wording is always very unclear and weasely around AZ. In several press statements, the phrase "auf eigene Gefahr" (at your own peril) has also occured. So I would wait for a clarification. Edit: medical professionals seem similarly confused about the matter, KVNO is very roughly speaking a doctors guild: https://coronavirus.nrw/haftungsausschluss-bei-impfung-mit-astrazeneca-bei-unter-60-jaehrigen-angemahnt/ https://coronavirus.nrw/haftungsausschluss-bei-impfung-mit-a...
jpxw 5y ago
In my opinion, the media and European politicians are responsible for this vaccine skepticism. You reap what you sow. The politicians banned the vaccine despite there not being scientific evidence to suggest that was a reasonable choice. The media in Europe hyped this up massively. In the UK, neither of these things happened, and despite there being some degree of skepticism, the vast majority of people are still willing to have the AZ jab.
- throwaway10110 5y ago
  Under 30s in UK are not recommended AZ jab Its same in other countries ranging from no restriction to restriction being to anything up to under 60s not recommended is not same as "banned" stop reading UK tabloids.
  - jpxw 5y ago
    Hang on, I don’t think it’s “not recommended” to under 30s. I think under 30s are just given the choice of an alternative vaccine, if they’d like it. In many EU countries, the vaccine was banned for large segments of the population for extended periods of time.
    - Sosh101 5y ago
      > In many EU countries, the vaccine was banned for large segments of the population for extended periods of time. Also happened in Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Norway, Iceland, and some African countries.
      - jpxw 5y ago
        Yes, and it was just as incorrect/unscientific in those places too, but we’re discussing the EU here.
        Sosh101 5y ago
        > but we’re discussing the EU here. Yes I know. You seem to be insinuating that it's all the EUs fault, and so I wanted to provide a bit of perspective.
gnfargbl 5y ago
> UK where politicians wrapped the vaccine in union jack and hitched it to Brexit bandwagon for jignoistic reasons Something I have learnt from the whole AZ business is how much media bias affects your thought process, even on topics which appear to be reported relatively neutrally. Here in the UK, the implicit messaging I've picked up from the media is that EU politicians have been briefing against AZ in order to discredit Brexit. One (fairly similar) country over, and you've received entirely the opposite message.
rsynnott 5y ago
> To be honest here in Ireland where majority of vaccinations have been Pfizer people seemed to stop caring about AZ That's the case now that Pfizer supply has been ramped up, but our vaccine program would be far more progressed if AZ had delivered. Ireland was supposed to get about 1 million AZ doses in Q1, 3 million by end of Q2. Actual number delivered so far is more like 300k.

jarmitage 5y ago

Does anyone know why all of the geopolitical discourse in the UK and Europe has been around arguing over a small supply, rather than about increasing manufacturing capacity?

Slartie 5y ago
Increasing manufacturing capacity is happening. BioNTech as the most important producer in Europe has brought multiple additional partners into production as well as an entire new plant, which by itself is churning out 1 billion doses per year when fully operational (they're still scaling up production there AFAIK, but have been shipping doses from there since April). Also, the CureVac vaccine is expected to be authorized in the near future, and manufacturing capacity for that one is being prepared right now, also through manufacturing partnerships within Europe. But the thing is: while EU agencies like the EMA are involved in these processes, and also monetary grants to finance production increases have been provided in several cases, the EU has a limited number of actions available to "increase manufacturing capacity", especially in the short term (the new BioNTech plant for example was already bought in September, so it took over half a year to get it retrofitted for production). We cannot simply - like the US or UK - declare that everything produced within the EU stays within the EU, with no exceptions. Or well, technically we could, and that would certainly increase the supply in the EU in the short term, but that would have geopolitical repercussions that might in the worst case damage the EU's vaccine production in the long term (because it is at least partially dependent on pre-products sourced from outside the EU), but will for sure cause a lot of damage in international relations. The EU is effectively the world's biggest vaccine exporter in terms of doses, especially when you focus on the mRNA vaccines which have the highest efficacy and least complications and are thus the most sought-after. Limited to just that class of vaccines, the EU even is the single relevant source right now. The epic fuck-up of the EU body that was responsible for ordering the vaccines in the first place might in the end turn out to be a bad thing for us EU citizens because of slower vaccination, but a good thing for geopolitical relations/tensions as a whole. That's because this fuck-up kind of deters the EU from taking the same isolationist "our citizens first" stance that the US took - politically such a move would now clearly be regarded as a cheap and, most importantly, illegitimate attempt to fix the failure of negotiating proper and broad supply contracts with manufacturers using brute political force, and that effectively stops the EU from taking this step, even if it would technically be a possibility. As a result, all the countries in the world without significant mRNA vaccine production capabilities on their territories at least have realistic access to a single source for their imports, as long as they negotiated supply contracts with the manufacturers early enough. This situation has for example been the key enabler for the huge success of the Israeli's highly acclaimed vaccination campaign, which was powered by vaccine supply from Europe.

jpxw 5y ago

This is the contract in case anyone wants to read it: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/867990/APA%20-%20AstraZeneca.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attach...

throw-8462682 5y ago

At this point, AZ must really regret having gone down the road of working with Oxford to supply a Covid vaccine. They are not even making money off it at the moment. Pfizer on the other hand hit gold with their BioNTech collaboration. They are making 10+ B this year and probably even more in brand value. AZ on the other hand lost billions of brand value. Is there a morale of this story?

_Microft 5y ago
I bet a lot of people will hate to hear that but I think the morale of the story is "Don't overpromise and underdeliver".
- sschueller 5y ago
  So far that hasn't hurt Elon Musk a bit...
thomasahle 5y ago
High risks, high rewards?
rsynnott 5y ago
The moral of the story is, don't contract to deliver 100 million widgets in a quarter and then actually deliver 30 million widgets. It's pretty simple; remove the vaccine context and there's nothing at all controversial going on here. Missing production forecasts is one thing, but missing them by this much is unusual and will usually result in trouble for the manufacturer. Really, I'd say it's more the case that Oxford is regretting working with AZ, rather than a more established vaccine manufacturer.
- PunchTornado 5y ago
  also don't fulfil 1 contract at 100% and another one at 30%..

stupidcar 5y ago

A couple of months ago Politico also reported that the EU had waived its right to sue in the AZ contract[1], so what gives? Would it kill Politico to give some additional context when a story seems to blatantly contradict its own reporting? [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-europe-commission-contract-astrazeneca-ties-hands-lawsuits/ https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-europe-c...

throwaway10110 5y ago
Apples vs oranges comparison you made, they probably given indemnity in case of unknown sideefects as other vaccines were given in europe, us etc This seems to be a contractual dispute.
- stupidcar 5y ago
  Why didn't you read the article I linked? It says: "The contract makes clear the Commission and EU countries can't sue the drugmaker for a host of issues, most notably if there are 'delays in delivery of the Vaccine under this Agreement.'"

codebeaker 5y ago

Sorry if this is considered off-topic, but I mus thave surely missed something about why AstraZeneca is seemingly the only choice on the vaccine market. I am German, we developed the Pfizer vaccine, but there is _no_ news about it, it seems like the AZ vaccine is the only option. Is it a case that Pfizer wasn't viable, wasn't used here, or only made lucrative contracts with other countries, or is it being used, quietly without drama because they are fulfilling their obligations, unlike AZ who seems to be in the news every day. I celebrated the success of the scientists (Turkish immigrants) who developed it, after the waves and waves of racism in Germany, having immigrants develop a vaccine helped vindicate some of our nation's political decisions to open the doors and borders, that we do in fact benefit, and, sadly now they seem to be invisible again.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hef19898 5y ago
There are a couple, Moderna, Pfizer/Biontech, Johnson&Johnson, AZ and Curevac (soon to be approved as it seems). AZ is the cheapest one (Oxford has them selling at cost so far) and was seen as the most promising last summer. AZ is getting a shit loaf of bad press, so everything AZ related is "news". All vaccines are effective and working, Pfizer as well as AZ.
detaro 5y ago
What? The Biontech-vaccine is mentioned all the time in news about vaccination progress and vaccine distribution. I really wonder how you could have gotten the impression that it isn't used.
DoingIsLearning 5y ago
I can't remember exact values but my guess is this friction comes from the price point. AZ was negotiated at something like less than 2 euros per shot for EU markets, and the Pfizer contracts varied wildly for different countries but it was negotiated at about 15 euros per shot for EU. With my cynical hat on if you are having to vaccinate millions that order of magnitude difference probably matters. What I haven't seen anyone discuss at the EC level is what would be the maths of just paying premium Israel prices for the Pfizer vaccine? Would the economic benefits of get out of this mess as quickly as possible outweigh the extra euros per shot spent on vaccination. My guess is it would likely pay off but then again I am not a European Commissioner.

JI00912 5y ago

> the point of the legal proceedings is to make it mandatory for AstraZeneca to provide the doses set out in its EU contract The point of a contract is always that fulfilling the contract is mandatory. That said, legal proceedings won't make anything go faster any more than other attempts at what sounds like plan economy.

zpeti 5y ago
As far as I understand it the levels of what “mandatory” mean were different in the Uk contract to the eu one. So it’s not quite true that that’s always the point, there are shades of gray which is exactly where this went wrong.
throwaway10110 5y ago
---
mort96 5y ago
I don't understand how you could possibly call this an attempt at plan economy, unless you consider all solicitation of a product by a government to be plan economy? How is this fundamentally any different from the US's purchasing of doses from BioNTech/Pfizer? I'm sure the US would take legal action against Pfizer if they weren't delivering doses according to the agreement?
- raverbashing 5y ago
  > How is this fundamentally any different from the US's purchasing of doses from BioNTech/Pfizer? It isn't. It's just that "euroskeptics" will distort arguments for the sole purpose of hating and dividing
  - JI00912 5y ago
    You're spreading prejudice, conspiracy theories and hatred.
- JI00912 5y ago
  Because the doses provided are a function of how well the tool chain works and not of weather or not they have to meet a particular target or at what level the target is set.

jolts 5y ago

I thought maybe people getting blood clots and dropping like flies in parking lots would be more worrying than not getting enough but ok..

ben_w 5y ago
It’s something like a thousand times less dangerous than the virus — 4 or 5 per million for the vaccine, 1 to 10 per thousand for the disease. (And COVID deaths staying that low assumes we continue to prevent the instantaneous case load exceeding the capacity of the health care system, which is hard enough when we can tell people a vaccine is coming and they just need to wait for it).
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  You really do have to segment by age groups when doing this analysis.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Would it change the conclusion? I can’t find good age-specific fatality rates for either thanks to all the search results being polluted with news about controversy rather than actual science, but the baseline pre-COVID stats I’ve seen for the incidence rate of venous thromboembolism in the USA is 30/100k/y in 25-35 year olds and 300-500/100k/y in 70-79 year olds. Again, that’s the rate it was happening already (well, in 2003), no vaccine and no pandemic. This doesn’t seem enough to counteract the roughly one thousand-fold decrease in risk of being vaccinated relative to not being vaccinated. In any case, this isn’t “people getting blood clots and dropping like flies in parking lots”. I’m old enough to remember when deep vein thrombosis was all over the news, convincing people to buy special socks for long-haul flights.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      I meant when comparing it to how deadly the virus is. The virus might be 1000x more deadly for the average person, but that's grouping 20 year-olds with 85 year-olds.

blfr 5y ago

The quality of leadership has really declined. Western countries seem to be run exclusively by petty managers. There's almost no "we shall fight them on the beaches" or "not because they are easy but because they are hard" and way more process, lawsuits, committees, etc. As it turns out, you need some charisma and vision to effectively do things.

rvieira 5y ago
I honestly don't understand your comment. "we shall fight them on the beaches" is war-time motivational speech. We live in peace-time (in Europe at least). In a stable, peace-time society, disputes are solved in courts.
- blfr 5y ago
  An acute crisis requires a different mindset. When you shut down half of your economy, introduce curfew, try to keep people in their homes, and plenty of people are also dying, you're not at war but it's not quite peacetime either. https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2021/04/06/scientists-against-time/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2021/04/06/scientists-against...
  - rvieira 5y ago
    "we shall fight them on the beaches" was not about metaphorical war. I was about real war, with real bombs falling and real enemy boots ready to invade. The above post is about a contractual dispute, for which a lawsuit is the obvious path. I still don't understand what you'd expect.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  I got the spirit of the comment. At the beginning of the pandemic, there should've been overwhelming support for therapeutics and vaccines. Multiple countries should've been preparing manufacturing facilities well in advance, and those that couldn't should've been scrambling to order from every vendor just in case. A "war effort" if you will. Instead we got a very inward and reactionary response (lockdowns etc) but lacked that longer term visionary response which required foresight of only six months. The following is my speculation, but - it's probably a consequence of having mostly lawyers in charge, and having elected representatives rather far removed from a direct democratic vote as in the case of the EU (although non-EU countries mostly responded in the same way by ignoring therapeutics and vaccines too)

throwaway4good 5y ago

The EU is hitting top bureaucratic legalize idiocy. Who cares if AZ breached the contract if it takes years of legal battle to find out? The EU needs to focus on getting more vaccines. I would suggest to start trail/approval processes for the vaccines from Russia and China. In particular China has shown the capacity and a willingness to export. So let's eat our pride and focus on getting the pandemic under control.

mort96 5y ago
So, it's totally possible that the EU isn't doing enough to approve alternative vaccines, I don't know. But dude, the EU is huge. They're capable of pursuing multiple avenues at once. I don't understand why they shouldn't try to get more doses from AZ _at the same time as_ trying to approve and procure vaccines from other sources. It's not one or the other.
- throwaway4good 5y ago
  Sure. I am just frustrated like probably so many other Europeans on EU's handling of this. To me EU has been naive and unable to protect the interests and lives of Europeans when other countries went for war-like export controls and aggressive poaching of vaccine companies / resources. I have posted this before: https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803 https://www.axios.com/countries-producing-most-coronavirus-vaccines-bda9794a-619d-4b8f-a620-b563421d4459.html https://www.axios.com/countries-producing-most-coronavirus-v...