What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

HalfAndHalf

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Lets see if I can make it simple.

Data is bad.

Ema need to take time and do due diligence to study the data in depth.

Ema wont take shortcuts.

Please don’t talk to me like I’m an idiot! You don’t need to ‘make it simple when you’re changing the subject as you don’t actually have an answer!

UK didn’t take shortcuts either, or the other countries that have approved it. They amended the approval process to speed things up due to it being a reasonably serious situation.

But keep making excuses of it helps you feel warm and fuzzy.

Amirani

Dressoutlet wrote: »

No, Brussels told Ireland they are not to order doses.

Except that's not what happened at all.

CIARAN_BOYLE

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Please don’t talk to me like I’m an idiot! You don’t need to ‘make it simple when you’re changing the subject as you don’t actually have an answer!

UK didn’t take shortcuts either, or the other countries that have approved it. They amended the approval process to speed things up due to it being a reasonably serious situation.

But keep making excuses of it helps you feel warm and fuzzy.

As I said

If anyone wants to complain about the approval not coming through I want them to explain the data and their favoured dosage regimen.

Dont just complain. If you want an approval tell me what they should approve.

What dosage regimen and why.

Edit: the uk came out and said they didnt know what the efficacy was for their chosen dosage regimen. That's a shortcut.

Dressoutlet

Russman wrote: »

Ireland is the EU and a company can’t release unapproved medicinal products before they’re approved. It’s not the EU just saying we can’t.

You really want us to go short of vaccines because you have the hump with the EU ?

The EU jeopardising the health of one country to spite another Warren's a little more than having a 'hump'
It's a downright dangerous precedent and should be nipped on the bud completely.

Yes we would be short of vaccines but that would be the fdault of the EU trying to play supreme ruler and not because the company rightfully pulled out.

Hurrache

Dressoutlet wrote: »

Tbh I'm pissed off at the EU telling Ireland we can't have a supply ready for when it's approved. They're taking their time and punishing the UK for brexit (not a fan of brexit myself, I support the EU) but risking the rest of our health's for spite. AZ should tell the EU to go fxxk themselves.

None of this post has any relationship to the reality though.

Dressoutlet

Amirani wrote: »

Except that's not what happened at all.

Can you point me in the direction of what actually happened then???

HalfAndHalf

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

As I said

If anyone wants to complain about the approval not coming through I want them to explain the data and their favoured dosage regimen.

Dont just complain. If you want an approval tell me what they should approve.

What dosage regimen and why.

Edit: the uk came out and said they didnt know what the efficacy was for their chosen dosage regimen. That's a shortcut.

What has a rollout regemin got to do with if it’s safe or not? You’re deflecting again. No answers, no response.

Dressoutlet

Hurrache wrote: »

None of this post has any relationship to the reality though.

Happy to be shown the reality.

CIARAN_BOYLE

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

What has a rollout regemin got to do with if it’s safe or not? You’re deflecting again. No answers, no response.

They dont approve based on safety or not. They approve a product and the dosage.

If they approved based on safety alone it would have been approved in September.

Russman

Dressoutlet wrote: »

The EU jeopardising the health of one country to spite another Warren's a little more than having a 'hump'
It's a downright dangerous precedent and should be nipped on the bud completely.

Yes we would be short of vaccines but that would be the fdault of the EU trying to play supreme ruler and not because the company rightfully pulled out.

How are they spiting another ? I don’t get your point.

Why would the company be right to pull out ? From what we think we know, they were paid for x amount of doses and can’t deliver. What the customer does with the product is of no concern to AZ in a sense.

Dempo1

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

The European Commission is concerned about where its money went basically.

AstraZeneca were paid €336 million as a downpayment to assist with the R&D and production expansion effort and there's a commitment to order €750m worth of product from them. That isn't small change.

Stella Kyriakides, European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety's statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLIs2tZ7Cp4

As to what's happening. The answer is we don't know, but by the looks of it we'll be finding out shortly. She seems to be absolutely furious and I don't think they would kick off that level of undiplomatic language without there being more to this than a little misunderstanding.

Hopefully that's all it is though, but we'll see. There's a meeting tonight.

I think the EU have lost the plot on this AZ are a private company, entered into a contract for supply of a vaccine, that's the easy bit.

The EU obviously got all excited but there's a slight flaw in the notion any private company, supplying a product that has yet to be approved by the very organisation purchasing it can be expected not to start supplying those who have approved their product. I find it hard to believe AZ could be expected not to supply to those waiting and have approved its vaccine.

I understand the EU has paid for a set amount of doses but if logic dictates the product in question was at time yet to be actually produced, let alone approved, how could the company be able to determine an actual delivery date, in essence the company could easily say, we'll get to you eventually. It might seem far fetched but I strongly suspect AZ "s lawyers have their T" s crossed whilst typically the EU wants it cake and eat it.

Pinoy adventure

There getting a higher price elsewhere

HalfAndHalf

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

They dont approve based on safety or not. They approve a product and the dosage.

If they approved based on safety alone it would have been approved in September.

Weak! You don’t work for the EMA and you don’t know what they approve on!

Excuses excuses!

Hurrache

The EU more than paid for a number of doses.

Amirani

Dressoutlet wrote: »

Happy to be shown the reality.

You want me to prove that the figment of your imagination didn't happen? How would one go about doing that?

Maybe you should give evidence to support your assertion instead?

CIARAN_BOYLE

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Weak! You don’t work for the EMA and you don’t know what they approve on!

Excuses excuses!

Weak research on your part

Educate yourself on the important of efficacy in the approval process.

HalfAndHalf

Pinoy adventure wrote: »

There getting a higher price elsewhere

THEY’RE selling at barely more than cost! Unlike the rest who are charging 20 times the price!

HalfAndHalf

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Weak research on your part

Educate yourself on the important of efficacy in the approval process.

Ah and now the non-proven ‘facts’ get thrown back.

I don’t have to prove your point for you, YOU need to show the facts to back up your weak point!

SPDUB

Dempo1 wrote: »

I understand the EU has paid for a set amount of doses but if logic dictates the product in question was at time yet to be actually produced, let alone approved, how could the company be able to determine an actual delivery date, in essence the company could easily say, we'll get to you eventually. It might seem far fetched but I strongly suspect AZ "s lawyers have their T" s crossed whilst typically the EU wants it cake and eat it.

As I understand it they also paid for it to be stockpiled for the EU prior to approval so that at whatever date it was approved there would be more dose's the later it was approved .

CIARAN_BOYLE

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Ah and now the non-proven ‘facts’ get thrown back.

I don’t have to prove your point for you, YOU need to show the facts to back up your weak point!

Proof. Feel free to entertain yourself with some facts.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/covid-19-vaccines-key-facts

Common knowledge too. I wouldn't see a need to prove common knowledge so enjoy yourself.

Donald Trump

Dempo1 wrote: »

I think the EU have lost the plot on this AZ are a private company, entered into a contract for supply of a vaccine, that's the easy bit.

The EU obviously got all excited but there's a slight flaw in the notion any private company, supplying a product that has yet to be approved by the very organisation purchasing it can be expected not to start supplying those who have approved their product. I find it hard to believe AZ could be expected not to supply to those waiting and have approved its vaccine.

I understand the EU has paid for a set amount of doses but if logic dictates the product in question was at time yet to be actually produced, let alone approved, how could the company be able to determine an actual delivery date, in essence the company could easily say, we'll get to you eventually. It might seem far fetched but I strongly suspect AZ "s lawyers have their T" s crossed whilst typically the EU wants it cake and eat it.

I'm not sure what you are not understanding about it.



If AZ took the EU money and then decided to sell the product to others then it is like as if you financed your local mechanic up front to buy some classic car you identified in order to refurbish it for you, you paid for the materials as he went along, and when you arrived to collect it he said "ah, I sold it to some other fella yesterday but sure I'll find you another one"

HalfAndHalf

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Proof. Feel free to entertain yourself with some facts.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/covid-19-vaccines-key-facts

Common knowledge too. I wouldn't see a need to prove common knowledge so enjoy yourself.

LOL! One subsection of one section that simply mentions ‘prescription and labelling’ does not a dosing regemin make!

You’re grabbing at straws and I’m not wasting my time anymore.

You did a reasonable job of trying to divert from you’re first incorrect post but not quite.

You keep defending the EMA and their slow response which is costing lives. None as blind as those that don’t want to see.

46 Long

https://twitter.com/GuntramWolff/status/1352899970517626880

HalfAndHalf

46 Long wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GuntramWolff/status/1352899970517626880

This can’t be right, it’s everyone but the EU’s fault......oh wait, it isn’t!

Fr_Dougal

Dressoutlet wrote: »

The EU jeopardising the health of one country to spite another Warren's a little more than having a 'hump'
It's a downright dangerous precedent and should be nipped on the bud completely.

Yes we would be short of vaccines but that would be the fdault of the EU trying to play supreme ruler and not because the company rightfully pulled out.

What is the name of god are you posting about?

Amirani

46 Long wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GuntramWolff/status/1352899970517626880

That's nonsense to be fair. The only statement we have so far is that AstraZeneca had a production glitch.

The EU paying a higher price per dose would do nothing to fix that. How much more per dose should they have paid?

Van.Bosch

Dempo1 wrote: »

I think the EU have lost the plot on this AZ are a private company, entered into a contract for supply of a vaccine, that's the easy bit.

The EU obviously got all excited but there's a slight flaw in the notion any private company, supplying a product that has yet to be approved by the very organisation purchasing it can be expected not to start supplying those who have approved their product. I find it hard to believe AZ could be expected not to supply to those waiting and have approved its vaccine.

I understand the EU has paid for a set amount of doses but if logic dictates the product in question was at time yet to be actually produced, let alone approved, how could the company be able to determine an actual delivery date, in essence the company could easily say, we'll get to you eventually. It might seem far fetched but I strongly suspect AZ "s lawyers have their T" s crossed whilst typically the EU wants it cake and eat it.

What if the contract said, if we approve at any stage in January, you will have 60,000,000 doses available in February?

Then in this scenario AZ says, if you approve in Feb we can provide 60% less due to production delays. Then the EU thinks the production delays while valid are not the full story and the contract terms both parties agreed to weren’t achievable as AZ didn’t stockpile the 60mln doses but rather sold them?

agoodpunt

seller's market

markjbloggs

They took our Jaaabs.

HalfAndHalf

Van.Bosch wrote: »

What if the contract said, if we approve at any stage in January, you will have 60,000,000 doses available in February?

Then in this scenario AZ says, if you approve in Feb we can provide 60% less due to production delays. Then the EU thinks the production delays while valid are not the full story and the contract terms both parties agreed to weren’t achievable as AZ didn’t stockpile the 60mln doses but rather sold them?

Just as in the Brexit negotiations, there does seem to be a lot of ‘we will always negotiate in good faith’ and at the drop of a hat accusations of distrust.

Same here, for all anyone knows at the moment it’s a simple business production issue, but senior people within the EU are publicly crossing the line, which is not in keeping with this alleged ‘good faith’. You have to wonder if it’s a bit of internal projection.

...Ghost...

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

THEY’RE selling at barely more than cost! Unlike the rest who are charging 20 times the price!

Most of what we have is speculation. However, what we do know is the EU funded the R&D as well as purchasing 300 Million doses with the option of another 100 Million doses to the tune of over a BILLION Euro. The approval by the EMA is neither here nor there.....the EU paid for these vaccines.

Now, it would seem that the EU have reason to believe that AZ have allocated doses to other countries which had been ear marked for the EU. Why would they do this? I suspect because AZ were getting a premium for those doses by the buyers. The EU are generally over cautious and to come out and make the type of statement linked in this thread tells me that they are pretty sure AZ are pulling a fast one.

greyday

The EU waited until November to order from Pfizer while the USA ordered in July, this looks a good way to deflect from the incompetence shown when ordering from the maker of the vaccine with the higher efficacy.

HalfAndHalf

...Ghost... wrote: »

Most of what we have is speculation. However, what we do know is the EU funded the R&D as well as purchasing 300 Million doses with the option of another 100 Million doses to the tune of over a Hundred BILLION Euro. The approval by the EMA is neither here nor there.....the EU paid for these vaccines.

Now, it would seem that the EU have reason to believe that AZ have allocated doses to other countries which had been ear marked for the EU. Why would they do this? I suspect because AZ were getting a premium for those doses by the buyers. The EU are generally over cautious and to come out and make the type of statement linked in this thread tells me that they are pretty sure AZ are pulling a fast one.

They didn’t find the R&D they part funded is all. That’s besides the point unless the publish the contract that stipulates that funding directly allocated them X vaccinations.

So you believe everything a politician says! Wow, ok then crack on so!

fly_agaric

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

does not a dosing regemin make!

What about the old saw "the dose makes the poison?"

HalfAndHalf wrote:

This can’t be right, it’s everyone but the EU’s fault......oh wait, it isn’t!

On this forum, no...
It's always 13 o'clock on the 31st of September and the EUs fault!

HalfAndHalf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Looks to me the british have pulled a quick one and pressed astra to supply them first


That type underhand scheming is pretty much exactly,what id expect from the british tory party

Any proof or just more of the same old same old?

greyday

...Ghost... wrote: »

Most of what we have is speculation. However, what we do know is the EU funded the R&D as well as purchasing 300 Million doses with the option of another 100 Million doses to the tune of over a Hundred BILLION Euro. The approval by the EMA is neither here nor there.....the EU paid for these vaccines.

Now, it would seem that the EU have reason to believe that AZ have allocated doses to other countries which had been ear marked for the EU. Why would they do this? I suspect because AZ were getting a premium for those doses by the buyers. The EU are generally over cautious and to come out and make the type of statement linked in this thread tells me that they are pretty sure AZ are pulling a fast one.

Where did you get the 100 billion euro, that is absolute crap in fairness.

HalfAndHalf

fly_agaric wrote: »

What about the old saw "the dose makes the poison?"

What about the dosing and amendments to it have been out there for a while now.

On this forum, no...
It's always 13 o'clock on the 31st of September and the EUs fault!

Must have missed that thread.....or is just tonight there’s a lot of blindness?

Danzy

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

This can’t be right, it’s everyone but the EU’s fault......oh wait, it isn’t!

There is a bit of By Jingoism creeping in on this thread, yet many of the most ardent supporters of the EU are pointing out that it's response is not acceptable.

Dempo1

Van.Bosch wrote: »

What if the contract said, if we approve at any stage in January, you will have 60,000,000 doses available in February?

Then in this scenario AZ says, if you approve in Feb we can provide 60% less due to production delays. Then the EU thinks the production delays while valid are not the full story and the contract terms both parties agreed to weren’t achievable as AZ didn’t stockpile the 60mln doses but rather sold them?

I'm not aware of any contract that can be tied down to guess work, maybe"s, maybe not"s?

fly_agaric

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Must have missed that thread.....or is just tonight there’s a lot of blindness?

I probably read the various threads in this place too much for my own good.:(
When the EU comes up in discussions it is generally not...positive shall we say.

HalfAndHalf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The uk supply isnt interupted




Like i dont blame/critise the uk government here,its in a terrible state as regards death rate etc and the EU going in demanding x,y and z off a country in crisis is no solution either

Because the U.K. are getting there’s from the U.K. factories. The U.K. have had delays in Pfizer and BioNtech due to the Belgium factory issues. As I understand it.

Donald Trump

Dempo1 wrote: »

I'm not aware of any contract that can be tied down to guess work, maybe"s, maybe not"s?

A contract could be structured as an option - "Beginning Jan 2020 the EU has a right to request up to X million doses per month at price Y and AZ must supply these"

Van.Bosch

Dempo1 wrote: »

I'm not aware of any contract that can be tied down to guess work, maybe"s, maybe not"s?

How many contracts are you aware of for vaccines in a pandemic? Are you aware of contracts that allow a buyer to inspect production logs and who production was sold too? As that’s apparently in this contract too.

I agree with you in general but contracts for these things would be so niche anything could be in them.

Baggly

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Lets see if I can make it simple.

Data is bad.

Ema need to take time and do due diligence to study the data in depth.

Ema wont take shortcuts.

If anyone wants to complain about the approval not coming through I want them to explain the data and their favoured dosage regimen.

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Please don’t talk to me like I’m an idiot! You don’t need to ‘make it simple when you’re changing the subject as you don’t actually have an answer!

UK didn’t take shortcuts either, or the other countries that have approved it. They amended the approval process to speed things up due to it being a reasonably serious situation.

But keep making excuses of it helps you feel warm and fuzzy.

Mod

Calm it down and improve the tone please lads.

Donald Trump

46 Long wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GuntramWolff/status/1352899970517626880

They bought X million from them and are now being informed that only Y are available. Where Y is less than X.



If they had bought 2X million, or were now willing to pay more than the contractually agreed price, how would that have meant AZ would have more than Y now?

Fr_Dougal

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1353802566623227906?s=21

Uh oh...

bennyl10

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1353802566623227906?s=21

Uh oh...

EMA to only approve for under 65s, it’s bad for a lot
It’s horrific for the UK

daydorunrun

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1353802566623227906?s=21

Uh oh...

Among seniors it has to be noted.

Wasn’t the plan to use mRNA vaccines on the old and this one on others anyway?

HalfAndHalf

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1353802566623227906?s=21

Uh oh...

Ah well sure, what’s all the fuss about then, cancel the contract it doesn’t work........

Completely coincidental timing of course! :-)

PCeeeee

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Ah well sure, what’s all the fuss about then, cancel the contract it doesn’t work........

Completely coincidental timing of course! :-)

Are you missing the part about over 65's? It's still an important part of the armoury.