EU unhappy with vaccination exports to non EU countries

[Green_Red]

Reading in the times this morning that the EU are unhappy with the export schedules of private companies.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...cines-go-to-britain-eu-tells-pfizer-0mxxv3xbj

 

[11101]

There is a backstory to this.

The EU has given a lot of money to vaccine manufacturers to build up their production facilities over the last year, separate to payments for the vaccines themselves. AZ is now saying they will only deliver half of what they promised to the EU in Q1, whilst apparently shipping in full to other countries. They're understandably annoyed at paying for other countries to get their shipments on time whilst they have to wait.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There is a backstory to this.

The EU has given a lot of money to vaccine manufacturers to build up their production facilities, separate to payments for the vaccines themselves. AZ is now saying they will only deliver half of what they promised to the EU in Q1, whilst apparently shipping in full to other countries. They're understandably annoyed at paying for other countries to get their shipments on time whilst they have to wait.

Is this true? If so, the steps the EU are taking seem reasonable. Can’t imagine it’s true though. How could they justify that?!

 

[fergieisold]

So why have countries like the Israel and the UK seemingly done so well? Better governance or is this all just bad luck for the EU?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

It's not EU vs UK. They're threatening to stop Pfizer exports to numerous countries which includes the UK.

 

[11101]

Is this true? If so, the steps the EU are taking seem reasonable. Can’t imagine it’s true though. How could they justify that?!

I don't know but that's what being suggested in the press.

So why have countries like the Israel and the UK seemingly done so well? Better governance or is this all just bad luck for the EU?

The UK approved the vaccines with a less vigorous process, so they got a head start. They are also taking a different approach to vaccine schedules by skipping the second doses for a while to give more people the first dose, whereas Europe is sticking with the manufacturer's dosing regimes.

 

[Kasper]

So why have countries like the Israel and the UK seemingly done so well? Better governance or is this all just bad luck for the EU?

In Israels case paying waaay above market price to be first in line for multiple vaccines, UK had quicker approval mechanisms (then e.g. EU) so they could start earlier. UK has also a reasonably well structured vaccination campaign (compared to other European countries), which kind of surprised me given that everything else Covid related was a shambles.

 

[Skills]

So why have countries like the Israel and the UK seemingly done so well? Better governance or is this all just bad luck for the EU?

Israel paid 3x the market price to jump the line IIRC.

UK went all in on AZ (100m doses) and Pfizer (60m doses) and luckily those two were 2/3 to be first approved.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I don't know but that's what being suggested in the press.



The UK approved the vaccines with a less vigorous process, so they got a head start. They are also taking a different approach to vaccine schedules by skipping the second doses for a while to give more people the first dose, whereas Europe is sticking with the manufacturer's dosing regimes.

The EU also took a lot longer to confirm orders for vaccines pre-approval.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The EU also took a lot longer to confirm orders for vaccines pre-approval.

Where did you read this?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

The EU also took a lot longer to confirm orders for vaccines pre-approval.

https://www.ft.com/content/c9bbc753-97fb-493a-bbb6-dd97a7c4b807

The EU was similarly later to embrace the groundbreaking mRNA technology behind the vaccine. The UK and US put in extra orders for the BioNTech/Pfizer jab within weeks of its encouraging early trial results in July. Brussels did not do its deal until November. EU officials say the time lag was due to necessary, rigorous discussions of issues such as liability.

Also this is interesting

In total, the UK and US have each spent about seven times more upfront, per capita, on vaccine development, procurement and production than the European bloc, according to data gathered by Airfinity, a London-based life sciences analytics company.

The EU has bodged it's vaccine program so far and is now desperately trying to throw it's weight around to compensate. That's how it looks to me, at least.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

https://www.ft.com/content/c9bbc753-97fb-493a-bbb6-dd97a7c4b807

The EU was similarly later to embrace the groundbreaking mRNA technology behind the vaccine. The UK and US put in extra orders for the BioNTech/Pfizer jab within weeks of its encouraging early trial results in July. Brussels did not do its deal until November. EU officials say the time lag was due to necessary, rigorous discussions of issues such as liability.

The AZ vaccine isn’t mRNA.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

The AZ vaccine isn’t mRNA.

Fair enough but being behind the game on the other early successful vaccine and the other issues faced in vaccine policy has a knock on effect in terms of desperation?

Have the EU invested more in the AZ vaccine than other countries and earlier?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Fair enough but being behind the game on the other early successful vaccine and the other issues faced in vaccine policy has a knock on effect in terms of desperation?

Have the EU invested more in the AZ vaccine than other countries and earlier?

I’ve no idea. Nobody does. The issue here is whether or not AZ are honouring supply commitments outside the EU but not those they made to the EU. If they are, then the EU is fully justified for taking them to task. If not, then the EU is being extremely unfair.

As I said in my first post, the former scenario seems very unlikely. I don’t know how or why AZ could behave like that. So I’d be interested to see some evidence that they are. My gut feeling here is that the EU are pissed off at unavoidable delays and taking that frustration out on the pharma companies unfairly. So they can be seen to be doing something about an issue that is out of everyone’s hands.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Would anyone be even slightly surprised if a huge pharmaceutical plc is shipping priority to the highest bidder ?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Would anyone be even slightly surprised if a huge pharmaceutical plc is shipping priority to the highest bidder ?

We know for a fact that Pfizer have done this in Israel, who paid double the price per dose of the rest of the world for their vaccine. The issue here seems to be fulfilling contracts at an already agreed price.

 

[Abizzz]

Brexiteers are going to make everything about brexit now huh?

 

[horsechoker]

War?

 

[cyberman]

I’ve no idea. Nobody does. The issue here is whether or not AZ are honouring supply commitments outside the EU but not those they made to the EU. If they are, then the EU is fully justified for taking them to task. If not, then the EU is being extremely unfair.

As I said in my first post, the former scenario seems very unlikely. I don’t know how or why AZ could behave like that. So I’d be interested to see some evidence that they are. My gut feeling here is that the EU are pissed off at unavoidable delays and taking that frustration out on the pharma companies unfairly. So they can be seen to be doing something about an issue that is out of everyone’s hands.

They have had meetings already and the EU have been refused numbers of doses made in EU and how many have been exported.
It cant get more shady than that.

 

[Traub]

I’ve no idea. Nobody does. The issue here is whether or not AZ are honouring supply commitments outside the EU but not those they made to the EU. If they are, then the EU is fully justified for taking them to task. If not, then the EU is being extremely unfair.

As I said in my first post, the former scenario seems very unlikely. I don’t know how or why AZ could behave like that. So I’d be interested to see some evidence that they are. My gut feeling here is that the EU are pissed off at unavoidable delays and taking that frustration out on the pharma companies unfairly. So they can be seen to be doing something about an issue that is out of everyone’s hands.

Even if this is true, I don't think it is as black and white as this.

I have a gut feeling AZ are probably honouring their full COVAX supply in Q1 by reducing their allocation EU. The reason I think this is fair (from a non-capitalist perspective), is because the Q1 COVAX allocation is primarily to vaccinate healthcare workers throughout the world I think. Of course I'm biased as I live in a country that is heavily reliant on COVAX, but I do genuinely believe all frontline healthcare workers in the world (i.e. those who are watching countless people die in front of them and are genuinely fearing for their lives each day they go to work) probably need the vaccine a bit sooner than those who want to be able to go to the pub.

Anyway this is all guesswork to be fair.

 

[TheGodsInRed]

I’ve no idea. Nobody does. The issue here is whether or not AZ are honouring supply commitments outside the EU but not those they made to the EU. If they are, then the EU is fully justified for taking them to task. If not, then the EU is being extremely unfair.

As I said in my first post, the former scenario seems very unlikely. I don’t know how or why AZ could behave like that. So I’d be interested to see some evidence that they are. My gut feeling here is that the EU are pissed off at unavoidable delays and taking that frustration out on the pharma companies unfairly. So they can be seen to be doing something about an issue that is out of everyone’s hands.

"One EU diplomat said AstraZeneca gave two reasons for the production shortfall, related to materials sourcing and manufacturing problems at a plant in Belgiu"

The UK supply is made in a UK site and doesn't seem to be having the same level of delays as the Belgium site. Perhaps why the EU are pissed.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Thinking about it, Pfizer announced a couple of weeks ago that they weren’t going to be able to meet Q1 supply commitments because they were upgrading their manufacturing. That didn’t get the same angry response, so there could be some sort of shit-housery on AZ’s part.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

"One EU diplomat said AstraZeneca gave two reasons for the production shortfall, related to materials sourcing and manufacturing problems at a plant in Belgiu"
The UK supply is made in a UK site and doesn't seem to be having the same level of delays as the Belgium site. That's why the EU are pissed.

Where did you read this?

 

[TheGodsInRed]

Where did you read this?

Just heard some minister saying they expect the UK to meet their production target.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I’ve no idea. Nobody does. The issue here is whether or not AZ are honouring supply commitments outside the EU but not those they made to the EU. If they are, then the EU is fully justified for taking them to task. If not, then the EU is being extremely unfair.

As I said in my first post, the former scenario seems very unlikely. I don’t know how or why AZ could behave like that. So I’d be interested to see some evidence that they are. My gut feeling here is that the EU are pissed off at unavoidable delays and taking that frustration out on the pharma companies unfairly. So they can be seen to be doing something about an issue that is out of everyone’s hands.

That FT article suggests that that the UK and US have invested more across the board albeit with a caveat

The US, UK and EU have all ordered or optioned similar numbers of vaccines on a per capita basis — more than five doses per person. But by accelerating approval processes, betting on some manufacturers and not others, and in the case of the UK and US, investing more in advance to help companies boost development and production capacity, London and Washington have made a faster start than Brussels.

In total, the UK and US have each spent about seven times more upfront, per capita, on vaccine development, procurement and production than the European bloc, according to data gathered by Airfinity, a London-based life sciences analytics company.

While the figures include different types of funding and might not be exactly comparable, the data suggest EU member states should have used more economic firepower earlier to finance upgrades of factories and vaccine raw materials suppliers, said Rasmus Bech Hansen, Airfinity’s chief executive.

Worth pointing out too that the UK supply of the Pfizer vaccine is mostly manufactured in the UK so are the EU threatening to withdraw certain ingredients from export?

@Abizzz

This is nothing to do with Brexit. The EU are threatening to withhold supply of the Pfizer vaccine or ingredients/components of it to numerous countries of which Britain may be one.

If it is correct that the EU have been put to the back of the queue because of they didn't invest as heavily to the development of the vaccine as other countries, then would the countries that did invest heavily in it not have a right to be aggrieved if they are then expected to absorb the same delays as the EU?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Looks like AZ are giving the same line to Australia anyway.

Has anyone seen any reporting anywhere of other territories getting preferential treatment by AZ? Because that’s the key to understanding all of this.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Well, if I was in Europe, I would say feck the UK too.

 

[Abizzz]

@Abizzz

This is nothing to do with Brexit. The EU are threatening to withhold supply of the Pfizer vaccine or ingredients/components of it to numerous countries of which Britain may be one.

I agree, yet the opening post asks whether this is the EU flexing it's muscle post brexit.

If it is correct that the EU have been put to the back of the queue because of they didn't invest as heavily to the development of the vaccine as other countries then would the countries that did invest heavily in it not have a right to be aggrieved if they are then expected to absorb the same delays as the EU?

If it is it would, if it isn't it wouldn't.

I have no clue how you'd measure contribution to a vaccine anyway? Most of the research that was necessary was done over the past 100 years. Do you count money spent since feb 2020? Or money into vaccine research post 2000? Pure MRNA research?

The EU seems pissed that it's not getting what it bought while others are getting what they bought. I think asking for an explanation is fair.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I agree, yet the opening post asks whether this is the EU flexing it's muscle post brexit.


If it is it would, if it isn't it wouldn't.

I have no clue how you'd measure contribution to a vaccine anyway? Most of the research that was necessary was done over the past 100 years. Do you count money spent since feb 2020? Or money into vaccine research post 2000? Pure MRNA research?

The EU seems pissed that it's not getting what it bought while others are getting what they bought. I think asking for an explanation is fair.

That is fair but they've kind of gone beyond just asking for an explanation.

 

[Abizzz]

That is fair but they've kind of gone beyond just asking for an explanation.

That's exactly what they are doing though? Asking for an explanation before more is exported...

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That FT article suggests that that the UK and US have invested more across the board albeit with a caveat

The US, UK and EU have all ordered or optioned similar numbers of vaccines on a per capita basis — more than five doses per person. But by accelerating approval processes, betting on some manufacturers and not others, and in the case of the UK and US, investing more in advance to help companies boost development and production capacity, London and Washington have made a faster start than Brussels.

In total, the UK and US have each spent about seven times more upfront, per capita, on vaccine development, procurement and production than the European bloc, according to data gathered by Airfinity, a London-based life sciences analytics company.

While the figures include different types of funding and might not be exactly comparable, the data suggest EU member states should have used more economic firepower earlier to finance upgrades of factories and vaccine raw materials suppliers, said Rasmus Bech Hansen, Airfinity’s chief executive.

Worth pointing out too that the UK supply of the Pfizer vaccine is mostly manufactured in the UK so are the EU threatening to withdraw certain ingredients from export?

@Abizzz

This is nothing to do with Brexit. The EU are threatening to withhold supply of the Pfizer vaccine or ingredients/components of it to numerous countries of which Britain may be one.

If it is correct that the EU have been put to the back of the queue because of they didn't invest as heavily to the development of the vaccine as other countries then would the countries that did invest heavily in it not have a right to be aggrieved if they are then expected to absorb the same delays as the EU?

I don’t buy that Airfinity stuff at all. I’ve seen some of the data they produce. It wasn’t great. I don’t know how you begin to collect the data you’d need to make a claim like that anyway. Not when so much investment is confidential.

The US and UK got a head start on the EU for a few reasons. The EU put more money behind the wrong horse (vaccines that failed) The UK has also bumped up its “vaccinated” numbers a lot by pushing out the second dose. The EU are also being more cautious with regulatory approval. This might mean that their vaccine roll-out can be better targetted (e.g. AZ for younger people only, keep Pfizer/Moderna for the elderly) but it’s caused significant delays.

The manufacturing stuff is a red herring IMO. Most of the Pfizer vaccine used in the UK is manufactured in Belgium and Pfizer don’t seem to have inspired the wrath of the EU despite also being unable to meet their supply commitments. I’d love to know why AZ have got such a stern rebuke but I don’t think any of us know the answer.

 

[TheGodsInRed]

I agree, yet the opening post asks whether this is the EU flexing it's muscle post brexit.


If it is it would, if it isn't it wouldn't.

I have no clue how you'd measure contribution to a vaccine anyway? Most of the research that was necessary was done over the past 100 years. Do you count money spent since feb 2020? Or money into vaccine research post 2000? Pure MRNA research?

The EU seems pissed that it's not getting what it bought while others are getting what they bought. I think asking for an explanation is fair.

Asking for an explanation is fair, but stopping supply to other countries is not. They should have put stipulations in the contract if they were smart. You can't change the rules during the match.

I don't think they actually will stop supply to non-EU countries though, that would be highly unethical. It's probably just posturing.

 

[Abizzz]

Asking for an explanation is fair, but stopping supply to other countries is not. They should have put stipulations in the contract if they were smart. You can't change the rules during the match.

I don't think they actually will stop supply to non-EU countries though, that would be highly unethical. It's probably just posturing.

Well technically anyone can change the rules at any time they like. That's what sovereignty is all about, or at least so I was told.

I don't think anyone other than certain agenda driven news outlets are even suggesting stopping supply to non-EU countries altogether. How this:

The European Union has told Pfizer and other drug companies that they must secure its permission before exporting vaccine doses to Britain amid concerns about the level of supply.

becomes "EU forcing pharma companies to stop supplying non eu countries" is beyond me.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

The manufacturing stuff is a red herring IMO. Most of the Pfizer vaccine used in the UK is manufactured in Belgium and Pfizer don’t seem to have inspired the wrath of the EU despite also being unable to meet their supply commitments. I’d love to know why AZ have got such a stern rebuke but I don’t think any of us know the answer.

Interesting, the UK vaccine minister said that the UK Pfizer supply is 'mostly' manufactured in the UK. He is a Tory and a politician though so likely could have been talking out of his arse.

Well technically anyone can change the rules at any time they like. That's what sovereignty is all about, or at least so I was told.

I don't think anyone other than certain agenda driven news outlets are even suggesting stopping supply to non-EU countries altogether. How this:

becomes "EU forcing pharma companies to stop supplying non eu countries" is beyond me.

Really? It reads like a threat couched in diplomatic language to me.

 

[Abizzz]

Interesting, the UK vaccine minister said that the UK Pfizer supply is 'mostly' manufactured in the UK. He is a Tory and a politician though so likely could have been talking out of his arse.



Really? It reads like a threat couched in diplomatic language to me.

Why would there be any need to couch it in diplomatic language? It's the UK

(If the UK were still in the block those same outlets and journalists would be screaming bloody murder they are giving away OUR vaccines without even checking how much).

 

[Revan]

Reading in the times this morning that the EU are trying to dictate the export schedules of private companies this morning because they aren't happy with the rates of vaccinations taking place in non EU countries.

Is this the first sign of the EU trying to flex its muscles post brexit? What's your thoughts on it?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...cines-go-to-britain-eu-tells-pfizer-0mxxv3xbj

That's a way of spinning it. EU gave money to Astrazeneca and had deals with them to ship 100M vaccines in this quarter. Astrazeneca is saying, well, you get 50m vaccines instead, cause reasons (we want to give more to UK and US). EU is saying feck no, you don't break the deal cause it was signed a long time ago. It is also threatening the UK that if they push this, then the EU puts an embargo on Pfizer-Biotech which is needed for old people (Astrazeneca vaccine seems to not perform well there).

 

[JPRouve]

It's a bit sad that people want to turn everything into a political conversation. Here the situation is fairly simple, vaccine producers overestimated their production capabilities and made promises that they can't fulfil in time, customers that have paid and ultimately financed the research for these vaccines are logically upset. I personally think that European politicians should relax, give the vaccines to the elderly and vunerable populations you get them. After all we weren't even sure to get a vaccine that soon.

 

[rednotled]

That's a way of spinning it. EU gave money to Astrazeneca and had deals with them to ship 100M vaccines in this quarter. Astrazeneca is saying, well, you get 50m vaccines instead, cause reasons (we want to give more to UK and US). EU is saying feck no, you don't break the deal cause it was signed a long time ago. It is also threatening the UK that if they push this, then the EU puts an embargo on Pfizer-Biotech which is needed for old people (Astrazeneca vaccine seems to not perform well there).

Would you mind sharing your source for that bolded statement?

 

[Revan]

Would you mind sharing your source for that bolded statement?

UK and US are not getting any shortage for that vaccine, apparently.

 

[F-Red]

It's a bit sad that people want to turn everything into a political conversation. Here the situation is fairly simple, vaccine producers overestimated their production capabilities and made promises that they can't fulfil in time

This. All producers were calling supply challenges in December. I think they're being overly optimistic to help their share prices.