Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Coronavirus: The Thread

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Coronavirus: The Thread

Old 27th Jan 2021, 13:10
  #13501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I doubt that was an approach the EU could have countenanced, TBH, not from any anti-EU viewpoint, but just because the larger the organisation to more risk averse it tends to be.
Indeed, and you can imagine the outcry there would have been if, say, the EU had put their money on the Sanofi product which has failed. The individual national governments, with the exception of Hungary, the UK and perhaps a few others did their populations a grave disservice in not going ahead with emergency certifications.. As I said before, they will have learnt a hard lesson, and will probably be less reliant on a centralised EU process in the future.

What’s luck got to do with it? The U.K. ordered the vaccine at least three months ahead, while the EU was ambling through its own bureaucratic hoops
The luck is in which products the UK chose to invest. Many may say that there may have been more to it than pure luck, but I think backing the "Oxford" vaccine had as much to do with national pride as any inside knowledge as to it's efficacy. The UK has made some good decisions and we must be thankful for that.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 13:18
  #13502 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,298

I doubt that was an approach the EU could have countenanced, TBH, not from any anti-EU viewpoint, but just because the larger the organisation to more risk averse it tends to be.
They did the same - but it took them 3 months longer. They, as did the UK, lost out on the Sanofi vaccine problems and delay. The problems ramping up the Pfizer production have also hurt them.

EU vaccine orders:

Pfizer-BioNTech: 600m doses
Oxford-AstaZeneca: 400m
Sanofi-GSK: 300m
Johnson & Johnson: 400m
CureVac: 405m
Moderna: 160m
ORAC is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 13:24
  #13503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,948
Had the boot been on the other foot, how much sympathy would the U.K. have had for legal bluster to jump the queue over orders placed three months earlier?
ShotOne is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 13:50
  #13504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
They did the same - but it took them 3 months longer. They, as did the UK, lost out on the Sanofi vaccine problems and delay. The problems ramping up the Pfizer production have also hurt them.

EU vaccine orders:

Pfizer-BioNTech: 600m doses
Oxford-AstaZeneca: 400m
Sanofi-GSK: 300m
Johnson & Johnson: 400m
CureVac: 405m
Moderna: 160m

I know, but it took them three months longer, ergo they were more risk averse initially to taking this approach.
VP959 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 14:17
  #13505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,661
So, from the figures above and the assumption that the UK has 68 million people and the EU 500 million, including the GSK-Sanofi jab 3.9 and 4.5 jabs per person.

Taking out the GSK-Sanofi jab the figures drop to 3 and 3.9 which are still reasonable figures to accommodate product damage in transport/storage.

Reassuring as long as the manufacturers can hit their delivery deadlines......

LowNSlow is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 15:03
  #13506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 56
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
As I wrote, the approach seemed to be of going into a casino and gambling, in the hope that one or two of the bets might pay off. Risky, in terms of costing a lot of money, but has proved to be beneficial when it comes to getting lots of people vaccinated quickly, and hopefully protected to some degree.

I doubt that was an approach the EU could have countenanced, TBH, not from any anti-EU viewpoint, but just because the larger the organisation to more risk averse it tends to be.
I expect there was slightly more to it than a totally random selection of candidates to back. As I pointed out in an earlier post big-pharma are very good at sorting out the regulatory issues, manufacturing and logistics but they are not innovators. It may be some of these players had already done work on SARS vaccines back in 2002/3.

Moderna are an interesting one because they are tiny; it looks like they are relying on contract manufacturing organisations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...#Manufacturing

Another interesting one may be Valneva, who pulled out of an R&D agreement with GSK a couple of years ago. If their vaccine makes it to approval and mass use GSK will weep.
dastocks is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 15:56
  #13507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I know, but it took them three months longer, ergo they were more risk averse initially to taking this approach.
But why were they risk averse? They could have signed contracts with many of the companies when the vaccines were at the development and/or trial stage. The only risk would have been money, and as the EU has none of its own it is quite skilled at spending other peoples. So money was not a risk - so what was the risk?
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 15:59
  #13508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 318
Mrs yt was phoned yesterday at 10am by her boss to say she had been in contact with someone who had tested positive for coronavirus. We arranged a test at the local drive through centre for 2pm (only two cars there - very quiet) and the negative results texted to us a few minutes after midnight. Very efficient, nice to have actual experience of the system working so well, where we live in Hampshire anyway.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 16:05
  #13509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 318
For those following my exchange with Tesco over their lack of implementation of their ‘no face - no service’ policy at a local small Tesco. Tesco assured me that they had had a word with the store manager to ensure a security person would be stationed at the store entrance to enforce the policy.

Visited the store again yesterday and as you’ve already guessed I walked in without a mask without challenge as there was no enforcement presence. Another stern email to Tesco and it has gone very quiet. Naturally I put a mask on before venturing further than the entrance into the store before anyone asks.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 16:11
  #13510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post
But why were they risk averse? They could have signed contracts with many of the companies when the vaccines were at the development and/or trial stage. The only risk would have been money, and as the EU has none of its own it is quite skilled at spending other peoples. So money was not a risk - so what was the risk?
If I had to guess, having had to grapple with the EU mandatory contracting procedure a few times, I would say it was most probably a lengthy debate about whether it was "legal", in terms of EU regulations, to just place contracts without going through the process of requirement writing, advertising the contract in the EU journal, assessing bids in accordance with the stipulated procedure, etc, as well as dealing with the issue of bids from suppliers that were both within and outwith the EU. In order to just do as some countries did, and place contracts quickly and directly, with no form of competition, the EU would have had to create some form of exemption to its own procedures. IIRC, to do that requires consent from most, perhaps all, of the member states, via some sort of process within the EU parliament. I think they found a way around this, but I can imagine that there was a lot of careful reading of regulations to determine exactly what they could or could not do.
VP959 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 16:15
  #13511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
If I had to guess, having had to grapple with the EU mandatory contracting procedure a few times, I would say it was most probably a lengthy debate about whether it was "legal", in terms of EU regulations, to just place contracts without going through the process of requirement writing, advertising the contract in the EU journal, assessing bids in accordance with the stipulated procedure, etc, as well as dealing with the issue of bids from suppliers that were both within and outwith the EU. In order to just do as some countries did, and place contracts quickly and directly, with no form of competition, the EU would have had to create some form of exemption to its own procedures. IIRC, to do that requires consent from most, perhaps all, of the member states, via some sort of process within the EU parliament. I think they found a way around this, but I can imagine that there was a lot of careful reading of regulations to determine exactly what they could or could not do.
I see, a bit of I’m not responsible I was only following orders.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 16:21
  #13512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post
I see, a bit of I’m not responsible I was only following orders.

Possibly, but although there is a belief that the EU just spend member states money willy-nilly, my experience is that a lot of the waste is perhaps just because it's inherently difficult to get agreement on the details of rules and regulations, and changes to them, because every member state has to have a say. This can seem to be a pretty long drawn out process, with lots of cost involved in many meetings between working party members from each state. Getting even a simple change to the wording of a regulation, to allow for something like technology changes, seemed a very slow process, mainly because of the need to get agreement from all. I can imagine that getting agreement to not use an agreed procedure or set of regulations could well be just as slow a process.
VP959 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 16:35
  #13513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 26
Re. Astra Zeneca vaccines, the EU lady says the EU rejects the idea of "first come first served".
I'll remember that next time I am in an immigration queue in the EU.
11277m is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 17:13
  #13514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hoofddorp The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 135

Coronavirus: EU demands UK-made AstraZeneca vaccine doses:


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55822602
spitfirek5054 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 17:28
  #13515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: scotland
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by WB627 View Post
I am under the impression that there is a widespread belief that Covid-19 is not dangerous outside and that the appropriate slogan is "Get out, but isolate !".
occasional is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 17:34
  #13516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 19
Well then, I guess it's time to sell my apartment and live outside.
MikeSnow is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 18:04
  #13517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 824
I don't know about the EU spending member states' money willy nilly. A search for contracts for supply of vaccines on the EU tenders/purchases site shows member states specifying contracts for the supply of various vaccines individually; eg: French contracts awarded and managed in France, Spanish contracts being awarded and managed in Spain and so on. I didn't find any contract awards, tenders etc on behalf of the EU as an entity.
I did. however, find half a dozen or so from the UK government. One or two were invitations to tender for influenza, Hepatitis B, polio etc vaccines. These were all placed by the Department for Health etc. In addition to those I found 5 contracts, awarded without calls for competitive tendering specifically for SARS Cov2 (Covid) vaccines and these were interesting. This one was typical, from September 2020:

Contract with Valneva for supply of inactivated whole virus human vaccine candidate. Place of performance: Sweden
Value of contract £1.00
Note says actual value of contract is being withheld
due to commercial sensitivity. Publication may enable competitors to calculate cost per dose.
4 others, with identical T&Cs were for:
Pfizer (UK), place of performance: UK
Aventis & GSK, place of performance: Berkshire
Novavax Inc, place of performance: UK
Oxford University/Chadox, place of performance: Oxford (this relates to the work done on the Asrta-Zenica product).
Something that puzzled me was the government departments placing these contracts. In the case of flu jabs, Hep B etc, it was the Department of Health as you would expect. Those relating to the Covid vaccines have all been placed by (and presumably managed by) the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Any ideas?
KelvinD is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 18:15
  #13518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 134
Received my letter for my jab this morning. Phoned number supplied and after a short queue I was given an appointment tomorrow at the local hospital and a time and date for the follow up. This was followed by an email with a pdf to complete before attending. Very efficient
DON T is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 18:50
  #13519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,948
The EU rejects the idea of “first come first served” and wants vaccine ordered by other countries months earlier. Despite the fact that even now, they’ve not approved it. I thought it was Boris who wanted his cake and eat it.

Last edited by ShotOne; 27th Jan 2021 at 19:09.
ShotOne is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 19:03
  #13520 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,298
To use an ACT expression “Fights on - Fights on!”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e...ines-jkhfdlm7w

EU tells Britain: Give us your Covid vaccines

The EU has demanded that tens of millions of Covid-19 vaccine doses made in British Astrazeneca factories be diverted to Europe. The call marks a significant political escalation in a deepening post-Brexit conflict that has included German threats to block exports of other vaccinations, such as Pfizer’s, from the EU to the UK.

The European Commission has accused Astrazeneca of reneging on vaccine delivery agreements, further threatening EU vaccination programmes that are falling behind..... Astrazeneca has said that vaccines developed by Oxford University and produced in Britain’s factories are part of the British supply chain, which it adds is running successfully because the UK signed contracts three months before the EU.

Stella Kyriakides, the European health commissioner, has rejected the argument and demanded that the vaccines presently produced in Britain for domestic use be sent to the EU instead. In talks tonight, Mrs Kyriakides will tell Astrazeneca that the company is legally obliged to use its two British factories to make up the shortfall of up to 70 million doses to the EU.

“There’s no priority clause,” she said, adding the EU “loses people every day” to the pandemic. “We reject the logic of ‘first come, first served’. That may work at the neighbourhood butcher’s but not in a contract. In our contract it is not specified that any country or the UK has priority because it signed earlier.”....

The UK government is preparing to dismiss the EU demands, insisting that it has a clear right to the first 100 million Astrazeneca doses produced in Britain. The company would be free to supply other countries only once they had “fulfilled their commitment” to the British government, sources said.

They suggested Pascal Soriot, the company’s chief executive, had accepted this point when he said in yesterday’s interview: “In the EU agreement it is mentioned that the manufacturing sites in the UK were an option for Europe but only later.”....

Astrazeneca has four production plants in Europe — two in the UK, one in Belgium and one in Germany — with, the commission said, all factories tied to the EU contracts for vaccines. “If UK plants are working better, are we expecting UK plants to deliver doses to the EU? Yes, we do,” said the commission’s spokesman. “They are part of our contract.”....

The call for export restrictions raise the spectre of the EU putting pressure on Pfizer, or other Europe-based vaccine producers, to cut shipments to Britain if Astrazeneca and the UK government do not relent.....
ORAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.