To be fair, I think the contract between AZ and Oxford University actually restricts them from making a profit for a period of N months/years.

So they are only technically allowed to adjust the price to take into account the different operational costs depending on the manufacturing site.

I believe AZ have said they will not profit off the vaccine until the pandemic ends. The interesting thing is that they may get to decide when that happens.[1]

[1] https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-puts-a-time-...

From top of my head, not before June / July or when the WHO declares the end of the pandemic.

Yes I did know that (I’m just being silly really) but even so, PR is a cost and so they wouldn’t even be making any more profit!

I do think people aren’t giving AZ enough credit for doing it at cost though. Especially compared to the €50 per dose Pfizer initially quoted the EU!

It was totally deserved, the EU helped fund the vaccine with a €336 million grant and what they did was stopping the exports from the UK plants to the EU while still exporting from the EU to the UK.No wonder that they didn't delivered the promised doses since their best efforts were being allocated to the UK.

This is false. The €336m was a down payment to AZ for 400m doses, not funding for development. It was agreed in August after protracted negotiations as the EU demanded a lower price.

Please provide some evidence for that claim. I've get to see even one bit of confirmation that this happened, just unfounded speculation by politicians playing political games (at the expense of their citizens' own health). The EU even went to raid the Belgian production facility to look for evidence this happened, and I've yet to see any further action after than. Want to bet it was completely made up?

The UK and EU supply chains are completely separate to the best of my knowledge. The UK manufactures and packages its supply, and the EU manufactures and packages its supply.

I know they accused AZ of this but as far as I know there is no evidence. Do you have a source?

It was a down payment for the actual jabs? Stop spreading misinformation.

Not that unfairly. They keep reducing vaccine deliveries on short notice in the EU and have been opaque in general. I think they have delivered about 10% of what they agreed to for Q1.

Indeed they promised 120M doses in Q1 and so far delivered 12.3M, out of which about 70% has been administered. While delivering basically exactly as promised to the UK and having a stockpile of 30M doses waiting in a warehouse in the US because they paid a higher per dose price.

I wouldn't use the word "promised" here. The contract , which is public, mentions "Best effort" deliveries only. The promised word is used to by EU officials who made a mess out of it and in articles for views.

True that. There is also a clause the frees AZ from any delivery delays caused by the request of additional doses above the agreed deliveries if these orders had a negative impact on availability. Or something a long these lines. And the EU happened to order more, which is the reason why AZ did rework on the factory, if memory serves well.

There is definetly a couple of case studies for a lot of discipline in that. Besides virology, epidemiology or medcine.

> having a stockpile of 30M doses waiting in a warehouse in the US

To be fair, AstraZeneca wanted to ship those to Canada and Mexico, but Biden (and earlier Trump) has forbidden exporting vaccines out of US.

The feeling I am getting is that AZ is being less cautious with their promises. What I fear is that they did the same with their fase 3 trials.

I read an unsourced claim on HN a few weeks ago that they did 9 phase-3 trials, and applied for approval on the basis of only 2. Which would be rather bad if true. Moreover, it is clear that their 1.5 dose regimen was a mistake in trial execution.

Meanwhile, the FDA still hasn't approved AZ.

It seems possible that AZ was overeager to present good results, and thus was less cautious than they should have been. It's only a possibility, but its one that worries me.

Anyone here have an source to confirm / debunk the rumor that AZ did 9 trials, and only applied on the basis of 2 trials?

edit: I just looked at the stats in the UK, and it certainly seems like since they started vaccinating cases have dropped off, and deaths have dropped of even faster. Since vaccines are probably targeted at the more vulnerable, it certainly seems to show that the vaccine has very positive net effects.

I really don't understand the "unfairness" about how AZ is being treated. This isn't an NGO that's doing their best with limited resources, it's a private company that is getting funded to expand their operations - this isn't charity, and I doubt anyone asked for charity.

EU is buying vaccines with profit margins, and those are delivering.

If that cost structure is proving to not be enough for AZ, then they shouldn't have accepted it, because clearly what they are doing now is borderline criminal, all while hiding behind a "best effort" clause in a contract, that's being stretched far beyond what is acceptable.

They messed up the trials, they set up production infrastructure that would have never worked to begin with (because of the UK contract not allowing exports of vaccines), giving notice of failed deliveries on short notice, and still make new promises of deliveries that are showing yet again not to be true. They are yet to file approval for other production facilities in EU that should have been working for MONTHS.

Now they dare to question independent regulators from different countries by saying their vaccines are fine - when they didn't seem to even have bothered to investigate any of the cases - it's like they looked at a spreadsheet and said "this anomaly is within these intervals", completely disregarding the type of cases, their local incidence, time window and age group. Ignoring the fact that these occurrences are 4x greater then the ones in the UK.

I understand that the EU doesn't want to file a lawsuit because it's counter productive, but at this point I think it's the only path - pull the funding, place it on other candidates, sue AZ. It's too much incompetence for such an endeavor, which makes you question if they are not simply cutting corners. Again, they seem to be pushing "best effort" to what is acceptable.