Astrazeneca may have made other supply chain decisions to build infrastructure outside the EU had they known this.
They absolutely would not. There is so much that goes into the regulations at play here (GxP specifically in Europe, similar to FDA in USA) and building out capacity takes years. They were struggling enough with restructuring their existing production towards this vaccine.
It's an incredibly complex system, for good reason, but it does mean it's extremely slow moving.
For example, much of the European shortfall is tied to expected production at the Belgian CMO partner NOVASEP. AZ first partnered with them in June 2020 and product was expected to be shipping 6 months later in Q1 2021
Over the last 12 months AZ has made a number of similar decisions for retooling or expanding existing facilities, as well as partnering with CMOs based on their distribution plans, which are now disrupted. Had they known about an EU export ban upfront, they may have negotiated different quantiles with ex-EU partners, or engaged additional Ex-EU partners.
https://bioprocessintl.com/bioprocess-insider/global-markets...
Had the EU known that AZ has a different understanding of the contract both had signed (to put it as neutral as possible), the EU-side signature might not have happened.
In that case, the EU could have invested more in other vaccine providers instead of that dud.
The EU is clearly very interested in this "dud" because their few other vaccine investments were unlucky, performed worse, and didn't make it through trials
https://qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccin... claims that 47M doses in total have been distributed across the EU. Of those, 8.7M are AZ.
If that company continues to be such a high maintenance supplier (the others had production shortages as well, but _somehow_ they managed to not make a mess out of that that made EU bureaucrats consider it necessary to set up an export control instrument just for them) any effort to get AZ involved might have been better invested in supporting any of the others.
For reference, the sums per product that I extracted from that data set (as of 2021-03-05):
AstraZeneca 8.682.532
BBIBV-CorV 550.000
Moderna 3.069.953
Pfizer/BioNTech 34.366.485
Sputnik V 46.000
Unknown 604.275
--------------------------
Total 47.319.245The "competing agreements" discussed in this section of the contract refers to conflict between the EU-AZ agreements and agreements between the EU and other vaccine manufacturers.
That is to say, if the EU is asking two manufacturers for vaccines who are in turn competing for the same processing plant, they are not in breach. They do however have the responsibility to let the EU know about it.
The contract is actually silent on competition/priority between the EU and other customers.
> In the event AstraZeneca's ability to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement is impeded by a competing agreement entered into by or on behalf of the Commission ... AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach of this Agreement as a result of any such delay due to the aforementioned competing agreement(s).
It does, as you say, come from a different perspective. It seems to be saying that if the EU has other agreements, and those other agreements impact AZs ability to meet its obligations, then AZ isn't liable.
So the competing agreements are not agreements between AZ and third parties, but further agreements either between AZ and the EU (most likely, perhaps to cover additional EU orders which may run in parallel for example) or other agreements between the EU and third parties (maybe if those agreements restrict AZ ability to obtain equipment or materials).
Either way, thanks for leading me to look again. This stuff is so complex and interwoven it's almost like we need a specialised profession to help clarify the legal aspects.
Haha, Agreeed.
0 countries planned their rollouts around vaccine exports from the US.
0 countries’ planned rollouts have been upended by new US export controls.
The impact will be more evident in a few months when the US begins playing vaccine diplomacy with under supplied EU countries.
In a few months at least one of two things will have happened:
1. The EU managed to sort out its logistical issues
2. Russia and China already stepped in (as they already do in some places), leaving no room for Washingtonian vaccine diplomacy
This is the EUs bullying negotiation strategy which they employ everywhere spectacularly failing.
The EU accidentally leaked its own contract with AstraZeneca after trying to redact it. It showed that AZ were correct about the wording of the contract and the EU had been lying. There is no real disagreement about that anymore: the EU is on the wrong side of that dispute which is why there's been a lot of posturing but no court cases.
BTW several EU countries have stockpiles of the AZ vaccine they aren't using because their citizens aren't turning up for appointments or volunteering to be vaxxed.
The only upside is the PR to some local citizens who want to feel that 'The EU is doing their job protecting us'.
Successful nations are not resorting to this. The EU is way behind and it's a really look.
The UK is 33% vaccinated and is going to fully open up in a few months, once they are full-blown open, then the clock is ticking on Von Der Leyen's job and the credibility of the EU because every day that goes by while US/UK are full steam ahead is a slap in the face. If the EU is 6 months behind fully opening up then the consequences - were there actually any way for EU citizens to do anything about it - would be severe. Since the EU political system is shielded from populism like 'elections' and certainly 'referendums' they're probably safe. I suggest the elites will band together and put all the blame on Von Der Leyen. But it may not come to that, production is ramping up it may not be so bad.
This is the biggest crisis of our era so the headline optics are really important, and the underlying materiality of lock-downs are felt by every citizen in the country. Imagine 60 million people under duress, looking next door, seeing how everything is open and happy? That's a political nightmare.
The vaccination data is here [1]
At the current rate, UK is open in a few months, US a bit thereafter. EU won't be able to open for technically 2 years (!!) so it's going to really depend on how vaccinations ramp up. Every politician is sweating.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
Edit: I should add, Italy blocking shipments to Australia is a completely different kind of communication than for example Trump, saying, earlier in the pandemic that he would 'prioritize Americans'. The later is a tough, but reasonable sounding policy. But actively blocking shipments especially when agreements have been made - it's bad. Honestly, if it were a remotely 'poorer country' like Brazil or whatever ... it would be even worse.
It's just bad however you cut it. The headline you want is 'we'll be done by August' etc..
USA never intended to export vaccines under Trump administration, Biden is upholding it.
The only difference really is that our EU politicians had big words, but when the rubber hit the read went the same route as everyone else.
To be honest, EU politicians were naive.
We should have banned all exports very early on as everyone else did and then graciously allow exports on case by case basis to the level we have now.
It would have been a lot better optics, but the same practical outcome.
As they should. Why would you expect domestic citizens being deprioritized?
An export ban would have made hardly any difference as production would have probably been aligned around the fact.
The EU is not 'naive' - it is 'failing' perhaps the most important test since it's inception.
Being a 'few months behind' US/UK/China etc. will mostly ok, but if it's more than 6 months behind, then this failure will resonate for decades.
Fair or not fair, right or wrong, the facts will be immaterial to the headlines that will ring for a very, very long time.
For example Denmark is doing quite well, but Bulgaria is doing quite bad.
So to repeat, healthcare is not a responsibility of the EU.
The EU is definitely the entity responsible for acquiring the vaccines on behalf of nation states - this is what is failing.
The 'delay' is not due to Denmark inability to field nurses, it's in the EU's ability to secure product - for whatever reason.
And in the end, it won't matter. If the EU ends up 6 months behind other nations 'there will be no excuses'.
I think that they'll probably catch up, but there's a real possibility they don't.
Why? This isn't something the EU normally does.
The approach actually makes sense, if everyone was acting rationally and competently it would work.
But they screwed it up.
Everyone is clamouring about the 'new world order' and 'pivot to Asia' and wondering what the 'Brexit' result would be ... and the optics of this are 'EU in last place'. It's just a bad look, and it's an event that will ring through time with long lasting effects, at least in 'hearts and minds'. There's still chance to catch up however.
Given the public policy goal is to prevent hospitals being overwhelmed due to admissions with the virus (and the commensurate decline into ICU on a ventilator etc.) the vaccine is doing two things - firstly it's reducing the number of people catching the virus. Secondly, it's reducing the number of people being hospitalised with Covid. That then has a follow-on impacat that there's a reduction in deaths (though that data isn't complete yet for the AZ vaccine, given timeframes, and the need to wait long enough before measuring mortality outcomes).
With good results from a single dose, even after a period of time, in a sense these people are "vaccinated". If the UK needs to re-vaccinate everyone with a booster twice once every 180 days (for example), that's "only" 378k vaccine doses per day, and they can deliver at well above that rate. If the supply increases as projected, there is potential for as many as 4m doses a week to be getting administered by April, with everyone having their first dose by June.
Pressure is then reduced on hospitals (as long as the vaccine is effective against prevalent strains) as you roll out subsequent doses - the 1st dose figures seem promising.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-data-show-vaccines-re... for over 80s
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3790399 for healthcare workers under 65
I would argue generally it’s agreed that humans have short memory.
A few wins for the local nationalists i.e. 'our people first' ... but it comes with just as much of a downside.
Better just to get the vaccines moving.