COVID Vaccine !

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
@mjr my final word on this. I will quote your words on price, profit and your other words insinuating the motive behind this is profit or pricing.

They are in every single one of your posts. My bold throughout.

I expect they will have listed as many plants as possible in order to make themselves look dependable and keep the prices up.

It is an accounting trick
to some extent. You just pay your Chiefs more and don't give them profit-related pay and hey presto, non profit.

Do we think the per-shot price difference has anything to do with the delivery priority?

So delaying shots sold for €2 instead of those sold for €3 or more would be an understandable decision, even if probably not the most ethical one.


I'll finally note one last time that AZ prices, as far as they are known, are a small fraction of those charged by others.

I'm done on this issue and won't be responding further.

Or to sum up: "I'm not saying you're taller than me, I'm just saying I'm shorter than you":okay:
 

Yellow Fang

Legendary Member
Location
Reading
No copy of that statement yet on the EC website, but there is https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_21_267 by the Health Commissioner which focuses on criticising AZ not the UK.
The view that the company is not obliged to deliver because we signed a ‘best effort' agreement is neither correct nor is it acceptable.

So why aren't they telling this to the other vaccine makers they have contracts with who have so failed to make a vaccine? Why aren't they jumping up and down and shouting at the Pasteur Institute. Tell them their failure is not acceptable. Tell them they paid money up front. I doubt Oxford AstraZenica would have guaranteed delivery because they could not have been sure they would be able to.

We signed an Advance Purchase Agreement for a product which at the time did not exist, and which still today is not yet authorised. And we signed it precisely to ensure that the company builds the manufacturing capacity to produce the vaccine early, so that they can deliver a certain volume of doses the day that it is authorised.

Yes, but they did not do it early enough.

The logic of these agreements was as valid then as it is now: we provide a de-risking investment up front, in order to get a binding commitment from the company to pre-produce, even before it gets authorisation.

If Oxford AstraZenica is making the vaccines on a not-for-profit basis then it would be a bit rich to expect them to take all the financial risk.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member

lane

Veteran
Meanwhile article in the guardian says lots on non priority groups being vaccinated and also GPs have lots of vaccine they are not allowed to use.
 

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
From macro to micro.

No word on my jab yet, which I should have by February 15 if the government is to reach its target.

Even if a letter arrived tomorrow, there would still be a week or so before the appointment.

Looks like this one is going down to the wire.

Good luck Paley. My parents had theirs yesterday, AZ, only got 3 days notice.

The Novavax product will not be available for quite some weeks yet.
 

vickster

Legendary Member
My dad had his (AZ) on Tuesday (next in April), my mum got her letter yesterday, so hopefully next week (they're 2 miles if that from the Epsom Downs super centre)
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
The view that the company is not obliged to deliver because we signed a ‘best effort' agreement is neither correct nor is it acceptable.

So why aren't they telling this to the other vaccine makers they have contracts with who have so failed to make a vaccine?
Probably something to do with those other companies not using factories listed in their EU contracts to supply another customer fully first.
 

Yellow Fang

Legendary Member
Location
Reading
Say a company signs contracts with two customers that are mutually incompatible in terms of delivery, what happens? This must happen all the time. The UK insisted on a legally binding clause with AstraZenica that Britain be served first. I am not a lawyer, but I would have thought the contract signed first had priority.
 

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
Say a company signs contracts with two customers that are mutually incompatible in terms of delivery, what happens? This must happen all the time. The UK insisted on a legally binding clause with AstraZenica that Britain be served first. I am not a lawyer, but I would have thought the contract signed first had priority.

We have no idea about the uk contract and if it insists Britain be served first, or the EU one.

Most contract disputes are settled by negotiation or arbitration. Formal legal proceedings take a lot longer and cost a lot more.
 

lane

Veteran
My understanding as that the UK contract is binding the EU one is "best effort". So UK gets priority. But probably won't be as simple once the lawyers get involved.
 
Top Bottom