EU vaccine rollout severely lags behind(statista.com)
statista.com
EU vaccine rollout severely lags behind
https://www.statista.com/chart/24471/covid-19-vaccine-doses-per-100-people/
687 comments
Nonsense. This isn’t really about countries exporting/not exporting. These vaccine deals are with private companies who produce their product around the world. Just because vaccines are manufactured in a specific country doesn’t make them property of that country.
Whichever country is contractually at the front of the line will have their order fulfilled first/according to the terms of the contracts.
The EU wasted months negotiating lower prices and then took longer with approvals.
There is no good guy or bad guy (at least until the UK or EU blocks exports preventing execution of the private contracts - at that point the country blocking the exports becomes the bad guy).
Whichever country is contractually at the front of the line will have their order fulfilled first/according to the terms of the contracts.
The EU wasted months negotiating lower prices and then took longer with approvals.
There is no good guy or bad guy (at least until the UK or EU blocks exports preventing execution of the private contracts - at that point the country blocking the exports becomes the bad guy).
> Nonsense. This isn’t really about countries exporting/not exporting. These vaccine deals are with private companies who produce their product around the world. Just because vaccines are manufactured in a specific country doesn’t make them property of that country.
The US used the national defense production act to block any export of BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine produced in the US to other countries, so no, this is not just "These vaccine deals are with private companies who produce their product around the world." - countries can and do influence these deals if it benefits them. UK did the same thing.
The US used the national defense production act to block any export of BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine produced in the US to other countries, so no, this is not just "These vaccine deals are with private companies who produce their product around the world." - countries can and do influence these deals if it benefits them. UK did the same thing.
The U.K. did not do the same as the US.
Don’t conflate the ability to negotiate carefully with banning exports. The private company AZ signed a contract with the British govt according to which they can export once they have delivered the agreed doses to the U.K. the faster they deliver on their commitments, the faster they can start exporting. No one forced them to sign the deal and no one in the UK is banning exports of the vaccine.
Don’t conflate the ability to negotiate carefully with banning exports. The private company AZ signed a contract with the British govt according to which they can export once they have delivered the agreed doses to the U.K. the faster they deliver on their commitments, the faster they can start exporting. No one forced them to sign the deal and no one in the UK is banning exports of the vaccine.
I have no knowledge beyond what I just heard from you.
That sounded implausible. The country which had the ability to negotiate that happened to be the same country where the doses were manufactured? Why couldn't the UK apply its careful negotiating skills elsewhere too?
Alternative hypothesis: the credible implicit or explicit threats of a ban were what enabled the deal. "Sign this or else."
That sounded implausible. The country which had the ability to negotiate that happened to be the same country where the doses were manufactured? Why couldn't the UK apply its careful negotiating skills elsewhere too?
Alternative hypothesis: the credible implicit or explicit threats of a ban were what enabled the deal. "Sign this or else."
Even if the UK was threatening AZ with an export ban, they didn’t force AZ to accept those terms. AZ could have just said no and made the U.K. government look incompetent and unleashed media scrutiny on BoJo.
Yes, having the industrial base is part of the attraction of the UK for pharmaceutical companies. As is having a skilled workforce and a reliable system of laws.
I’m rejecting your original point about the U.S. and U.K. doing the same thing, which they aren’t.
Yes, having the industrial base is part of the attraction of the UK for pharmaceutical companies. As is having a skilled workforce and a reliable system of laws.
I’m rejecting your original point about the U.S. and U.K. doing the same thing, which they aren’t.
Well, the motivation and effect is exactly the same which is what most people care about in the end. It's a nationalistic move which is what makes your day if you're a nationalist.
The UK government provided a lot of the money to AZ to build out the local vaccine supply chain and factories. Those factories most likely wouldn't exist unless the UK government had paid that money. So, as part of paying for all that, they asked for timed exclusively.
Also remember the vaccine was developed by Oxford using a significant amount of UK government funding, and was licensed to other countries, such as India, for low cost manufacturing.
We did also buy a lot of vaccine from other places (e.g. Pfizer which is also being widely deployed). But with AZ in particular (and to some extent Novavax) there was a focus on building a local supply chain so that countries can't play games with our vaccine supply. Supposedly Pfizer turned down the offer to build UK based factories.
Also remember the vaccine was developed by Oxford using a significant amount of UK government funding, and was licensed to other countries, such as India, for low cost manufacturing.
We did also buy a lot of vaccine from other places (e.g. Pfizer which is also being widely deployed). But with AZ in particular (and to some extent Novavax) there was a focus on building a local supply chain so that countries can't play games with our vaccine supply. Supposedly Pfizer turned down the offer to build UK based factories.
> The UK government provided a lot of the money to AZ to build out the local vaccine supply chain and factories
So did the EU.
> Also remember the vaccine was developed by Oxford using a significant amount of UK government funding
And Biontech was developed with German funding. Did Germany insist on exclusivity? Maybe we should have...
So did the EU.
> Also remember the vaccine was developed by Oxford using a significant amount of UK government funding
And Biontech was developed with German funding. Did Germany insist on exclusivity? Maybe we should have...
- The vaccine is mainly funded by Oxford University and AstraZeneca (AZ) . The UK Government also provided £65.5m.
- Most of the AZ vaccine for the UK is being made in the UK. AZ have said none of their vaccines have been sent from the EU to the UK.
- AstraZeneca said its agreement with the EU allowed the option of supplying Europe from UK sites, but only once the UK had sufficient supplies (due to the contract the UK negotiated) .
- A drop in confidence in the AZ vaccine means there are lots of unused vaccines. France and Germany have used only about half of the AstraZeneca jabs they have received, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).
- 10 million Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines have been exported from the EU to the UK.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56483766
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
- Most of the AZ vaccine for the UK is being made in the UK. AZ have said none of their vaccines have been sent from the EU to the UK.
- AstraZeneca said its agreement with the EU allowed the option of supplying Europe from UK sites, but only once the UK had sufficient supplies (due to the contract the UK negotiated) .
- A drop in confidence in the AZ vaccine means there are lots of unused vaccines. France and Germany have used only about half of the AstraZeneca jabs they have received, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).
- 10 million Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines have been exported from the EU to the UK.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56483766
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
Are there really a lot of unused vaccines in Europe though? What are the equivalent numbers for other countries? I submit it's a supply chain thing, there's a week's worth of vaccines moving from the factory to the humans
No there are not. Those are second doses. In EU they 'reserved' second doses. UK for example went on to vaccinate as much as possible. That's why there will be a delay now of a month or two.
> France and Germany have used only about half of the AstraZeneca jabs they have received
Now why might they have only used half so far, of a vaccine requiring two jabs?
They are keeping the other half for the required 2nd jab.
For some bizarre reason, they are not confident about timely delivery of future supplies.
Now why might they have only used half so far, of a vaccine requiring two jabs?
They are keeping the other half for the required 2nd jab.
For some bizarre reason, they are not confident about timely delivery of future supplies.
Unfortunately the drop in consumer trust has been enormous. [0] And humans lose trust faster than they regain it.
After the wild "let us suspend AZ and let us restart it in two days" ride, it will be much harder to get AZ into arms of European patients. Even here in the Czech Republic, where AZ wasn't suspended, the reverbations in the public are stark and all kinds of half-baked conspiracies started circulating. (An example: "Germans want to get rid of a junk vaccine and force it on us Slavic untermenschen, while they will only use more expensive and better Pfizer for themselves.")
[0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2...
After the wild "let us suspend AZ and let us restart it in two days" ride, it will be much harder to get AZ into arms of European patients. Even here in the Czech Republic, where AZ wasn't suspended, the reverbations in the public are stark and all kinds of half-baked conspiracies started circulating. (An example: "Germans want to get rid of a junk vaccine and force it on us Slavic untermenschen, while they will only use more expensive and better Pfizer for themselves.")
[0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2...
(a) Consumer confidence wasn't high in the first place
(b) This wasn't without reason. AZ has significantly more severe side effects and is less effective.
(c) That said, I'd certainly still take it, it is highly effective at preventing the worst outcomes.
(d) That said, the whole "consumer confidence" narrative is a canard. Its effects don't come anywhere near the effect of the delivery shortfalls. It's so totally ridiculous that it does make me wonder where it is coming from.
(b) This wasn't without reason. AZ has significantly more severe side effects and is less effective.
(c) That said, I'd certainly still take it, it is highly effective at preventing the worst outcomes.
(d) That said, the whole "consumer confidence" narrative is a canard. Its effects don't come anywhere near the effect of the delivery shortfalls. It's so totally ridiculous that it does make me wonder where it is coming from.
> So did the EU.
How much did they fund before the initial order? I can't seem to find a source. All the results just talk about their down payment not the initial funding like the UKs £65m. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56483766
How much did they fund before the initial order? I can't seem to find a source. All the results just talk about their down payment not the initial funding like the UKs £65m. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56483766
Another hypothesis: Oxford was originally going to partner with Merck [1] but there were no supply guarantees in that contract. AstraZeneca was willing to give guarantees and run production in the UK, so the UK government leaned on Oxford and had them partner with the more agreeable supplier.
[1] https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rejected-contracts-and-a...
[1] https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rejected-contracts-and-a...
I don’t know why you presuppose the U.K. is where it would have had to be manufactured. Manufacture in the U.K. appears to have been made to happen at the insistence and investment of the U.K. government, from my recollection of a thread by an Oxford researcher involved.
There appears to be a similar deal with Novavax to setup similar domestic capacity in the UK for its vaccine.
There appears to be a similar deal with Novavax to setup similar domestic capacity in the UK for its vaccine.
The only reason it was AZ instead of Merck was because the UK blocked the Oxford/Merck deal so they could force AZ to agree to “UK first” contracts.
Jolly good they did that too as Merck is a US company, not an EU one.
And US companies ARE under an export ban.
So your point is?
And US companies ARE under an export ban.
So your point is?
Don't conflate Merck with Merck. There's two "Merck", one is Merck KGaA, which is a German company, and the other one is Merck & Co. Inc., which is the US company. These are independent entities today, they just share a common history by originally being a German company, of which the US company was splitted off during WW1.
The Oxford/Merck deal would have been with Merck KGaA, as far as I know. The US government would have had no means to apply export bans to a German-based company.
The Oxford/Merck deal would have been with Merck KGaA, as far as I know. The US government would have had no means to apply export bans to a German-based company.
And they signed an agreement with the EU saying they have no such prioritisation deal with anyone else.
This is not what the contract says. The contract says there is no other contract that would prevent them fulfilling the EU contract. Since the contract makes no promises about delivery schedule it’s pretty clear the U.K. contract does not prevent its fulfilment, as the U.K. contract can only delay it.
However the EU contract seems to insist the initial 300M doses are made within the EU itself, and the EU has its own dedicated supply chain regardless that can eventually deliver, so this also seems to exclude conflict with the U.K. contract.
However the EU contract seems to insist the initial 300M doses are made within the EU itself, and the EU has its own dedicated supply chain regardless that can eventually deliver, so this also seems to exclude conflict with the U.K. contract.
This is hair splitting, because the effect is exactly the same. The UK made sure not to export any vaccines until it has more than enough. This is exactly what the the US is doing, even if they use technically slightly different means.
Having a preferential contract with a single supplier is not remotely the same as imposing export controls on every supplier within a territory. The EU is and always has been allowed to source vaccines from the UK and the fact it voluntarily chose not to does not mean it was 'effectively' banned from doing so. The British government spent months and tens of millions of pounds setting up the AZ supply chain while the EU were haggling over its contract. It's not then unreasonable for the British government to require that it has priority on the supply it was instrumental in creating.
[deleted]
How is it hair splitting?
If the EU had paid for the vaccine's development, they could have had the deal instead.
But they didn't.
If the EU had paid for the vaccine's development, they could have had the deal instead.
But they didn't.
You just confirmed my point. The EU -in contrast to the US and the UK- did not want any exclusivity. They wanted collaboration and a fair distribution of vaccines. They negotiated on a EU level exactly to avoid any nationalistic competition. I am not saying that the US/UK strategy is bad in any objective way. I am just saying that it is the same strategy.
By "fair" do you mean EU countries favoured over the rest of the world? How much have the EU exported? They only house 6% of the world's population, but are keeping something like 75% for themselves, no?
And how much would be the EU's "fair" share of vaccine manufactured in the UK? As they seem to be expecting far more than that 25% for themselves, from their retoric they wanted it "evenly" distributed, i.e. massively in their favour, directly from Ms Von der Leyen's mouth:
“That is the message to AstraZeneca, ‘You fulfil your contract with Europe before you start delivering to other countries’.”
There's nothing "fair" about the EU's distribution of the vaccine, claiming otherwise shows complete naivety or bare faced lying.
And how much would be the EU's "fair" share of vaccine manufactured in the UK? As they seem to be expecting far more than that 25% for themselves, from their retoric they wanted it "evenly" distributed, i.e. massively in their favour, directly from Ms Von der Leyen's mouth:
“That is the message to AstraZeneca, ‘You fulfil your contract with Europe before you start delivering to other countries’.”
There's nothing "fair" about the EU's distribution of the vaccine, claiming otherwise shows complete naivety or bare faced lying.
Other countries can also make the effort to produce it themselves.
>"The US used the national defense production act to block any export of BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine produced in the US to other countries"
This is false. The DPA was invoked in order to a) block the export of certain raw materials in order to prioritise local production of vaccines and b) to compel drugmaker Merck to help produce its competitor Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.[1] It does not block the export of vaccines. The White House clarified this last week as well.
[1] https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/03/02/biden-administrati...
This is false. The DPA was invoked in order to a) block the export of certain raw materials in order to prioritise local production of vaccines and b) to compel drugmaker Merck to help produce its competitor Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.[1] It does not block the export of vaccines. The White House clarified this last week as well.
[1] https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/03/02/biden-administrati...
However, the US government was able to block export of AstraZeneca, apparently due to having purchased the vaccine:
The U.S. Is Sitting on Tens of Millions of Vaccine Doses the World Needs https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/us/politics/coronavirus-a...
US agrees to share AstraZeneca vaccines with Mexico, Canada https://amp.france24.com/en/americas/20210319-closing-in-on-...
The U.S. Is Sitting on Tens of Millions of Vaccine Doses the World Needs https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/us/politics/coronavirus-a...
US agrees to share AstraZeneca vaccines with Mexico, Canada https://amp.france24.com/en/americas/20210319-closing-in-on-...
The US government purchased those. They own those doses and so they are not AstraZenca's to sell.
From your own nytimes link:
>"Last May, the Trump administration pledged up to $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca to finance the development and manufacturing of its vaccine, which it developed with the University of Oxford, and to supply the United States with 300 million doses if it proved effective."
AstraZenca is free to export any vaccine beyond their contractual obligation of those doses. Jane Psaki confirmed as much in her WH press conference on Thursday.
From your own nytimes link:
>"Last May, the Trump administration pledged up to $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca to finance the development and manufacturing of its vaccine, which it developed with the University of Oxford, and to supply the United States with 300 million doses if it proved effective."
AstraZenca is free to export any vaccine beyond their contractual obligation of those doses. Jane Psaki confirmed as much in her WH press conference on Thursday.
The EU paid AstraZeneca to stockpile vaccines as well. AstraZeneca exported those to the UK
That’s not been demonstrated. It has been claimed that a separate supply chain was initially purchased for the U.K. within the EU. No evidence has been presented that AZ doses from EU supply chain were diverted.
And the EU contract with AZ includes the UK as, technically, an EU member state. SO that isn't as straight forward as it seems.
Really? The UK left more than a year ago. There was merely a transition period where they would abide by EU regulation.
Only for one clause of the contract. There's a requirement that all vaccines supplied under the contract are sourced from within the EU, with some provision for AstraZeneca to source from elsewhere under exceptional circumstances, and it says the UK is treated as part of the EU for the purpose of that clause and only that one. The part requiring them to set up an EU supply chain and make a best effort to supply the EU with a certain number of doses on a certain schedule does not include the UK. Like, someone went to actual effort to ensure it didn't apply to that part of the contract (and I wouldn't be surprised if it came from the EU side).
Yep, the contract between the EU and AZ explicitly states that the UK shall be treated for most purposes (manufacturing site and so on) as an EU member. The UK is not included in the EU orders so.
>Whichever country is contractually at the front of the line will have their order fulfilled first/according to the terms of the contracts.
Tell that to Canada. They were securing doses from day one and still suffered from delayed shipments and now have to contend with countries of manufacture forbidding export. What really pisses me off is that the US Gov had 30 million doses of Astra for several months and it it isn't even approved for use. Why hoard it when you can save lives in other countries while you have no intention of using it soon if ever? Sure they might get their approval in May or June but by then I expect the other manufacturers to have ramped up to cover everyone everywhere.
Tell that to Canada. They were securing doses from day one and still suffered from delayed shipments and now have to contend with countries of manufacture forbidding export. What really pisses me off is that the US Gov had 30 million doses of Astra for several months and it it isn't even approved for use. Why hoard it when you can save lives in other countries while you have no intention of using it soon if ever? Sure they might get their approval in May or June but by then I expect the other manufacturers to have ramped up to cover everyone everywhere.
My understanding is that the manufacturer of the vaccine didn't apply for emergency approval- they are letting it go through a longer process by their own choice.
There might be perfectly valid reasons for this- I am not sure to what extent the government could or would want to force it to fast-track.
There might be perfectly valid reasons for this- I am not sure to what extent the government could or would want to force it to fast-track.
Probably the same reason why the manufacturer hasn't requested EU approval of the Dutch plant where they manufacture vaccines exported to the UK. That is, to make more money.
The manufacturer didn't apply for EUA because the European trial was a mess, and there was basically no chance of FDA approval based on the data they had.
The FDA is already reluctant to use trials from jurisdictions that may be very different demographically. When the trials are marginal, confused, and confounded, the chance of a FDA approval become negligible.
If the AZ US trial pops out good data, you can expect a speedy EUA application.
The FDA is already reluctant to use trials from jurisdictions that may be very different demographically. When the trials are marginal, confused, and confounded, the chance of a FDA approval become negligible.
If the AZ US trial pops out good data, you can expect a speedy EUA application.
Sorry but this is a lie.
Canada put all their eggs in the CanSino vaccine even though they knew they had a bad relationship with China. This summer China conveniently blocked all progress and Canada was left scrambling. Blame Trudeau not the US.
Canada put all their eggs in the CanSino vaccine even though they knew they had a bad relationship with China. This summer China conveniently blocked all progress and Canada was left scrambling. Blame Trudeau not the US.
I don’t think this is true? I recall an infographie from before vaccines had been deployed anywhere which showed where all of the countries were sourcing their vaccines from, in what quantities, etc, and I believe Canada was buying all sorts of vaccines so they would have much redundancy in case problems arose with any of them.
This does not resemble truth. Canada bought in to a ton of vaccines. Something like 6 doses per Canadian worth.
You are lying. Canada has ordered 7 times the amount of population. From different manufacturers. You’re making things up.
Biggest problem of Canada? There’s no local manufacture. And yes you can blame the liberals for that. Your anti Chinese talking point is not based in facts.
Biggest problem of Canada? There’s no local manufacture. And yes you can blame the liberals for that. Your anti Chinese talking point is not based in facts.
Only after the deal with CanSino fell through. That’s why Canada doesn’t have enough vaccine right now. And won’t have enough for months and months.
The deals closed after the CanSino deal fell through. Canada didn't sit around, waiting for it to fall through, before negotiating the others. Securing multiple sources of vaccine from independent providers was always the government's plan.
But because the first of those four deals fell through (and because the countries manufacturing vaccines bought in other deals are prioritizing their domestic markets), politicians of all party affiliations now have an excuse to grouse.
But because the first of those four deals fell through (and because the countries manufacturing vaccines bought in other deals are prioritizing their domestic markets), politicians of all party affiliations now have an excuse to grouse.
It's silly making comments like that when a simple Google search proves I'm not lying.
Article
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/canada-locks-in-20...
After securing 20 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, they exercised an option in early Jan 2021 for another 20 million.
Article
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/12/16/why-did-...
Canada has purchased 40 million doses from Moderna, and expects delivery of up to 168,000 doses before the end of December 2020
Article
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/canada-the-biggest-hoard...
Canada the biggest hoarder of COVID-19 vaccine pre-orders in First World, NGOs say
Article
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/canada-locks-in-20...
After securing 20 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, they exercised an option in early Jan 2021 for another 20 million.
Article
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/12/16/why-did-...
Canada has purchased 40 million doses from Moderna, and expects delivery of up to 168,000 doses before the end of December 2020
Article
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/canada-the-biggest-hoard...
Canada the biggest hoarder of COVID-19 vaccine pre-orders in First World, NGOs say
I suggest you yourself do a google search to uncover the truth.
Canada only bought doses from other companies after CanSino fell through in summer 2020 putting them at the back of the line.
https://nationalpost.com/news/moderna-chairman-says-canada-n...
“ Early last year, Canada also signed an agreement with Chinese vaccine-maker CanSino for a vaccine trial, but that deal fell apart. CanSino had initially agreed to bring its vaccine candidate to Canada for testing.Critics have accused the federal government of failing to move swiftly to secure agreements with the likes of Pfizer and Moderna because it was focused on that failed deal.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56035306
My sister is a pharmacist in Toronto. She is personally vaccinating people right now as we speak. She said as of last week Ontario only had 200,000 Astra Zeneca vaccine doses allocated to it until April. 200,000 for 15 million people. She says that maybe Ontario may get more on Friday via the US sending more AZ but there’s no information about anything else. Until a few days ago, AZ could not be given to anyone over 64 which caused a lot of confusion and anger. And then Ford said in a conference that they were letting people get the AZ vaccine but they didn’t let the pharmacies know ahead of time, causing even more confusion.
My mom who is in her 80s, her second dose of Pfizer was just recently pushed out by 4 months because they don’t have enough supply. My aunt who is in her 70s couldn’t register (until recently as I mentioned) for a shot because they didn’t have any supply for her age range.
So no, Canada doesn’t have the doses it needs. It’s last in line because they started negotiating months after every other country and only after CanSino deal crumbled.
Canada only bought doses from other companies after CanSino fell through in summer 2020 putting them at the back of the line.
https://nationalpost.com/news/moderna-chairman-says-canada-n...
“ Early last year, Canada also signed an agreement with Chinese vaccine-maker CanSino for a vaccine trial, but that deal fell apart. CanSino had initially agreed to bring its vaccine candidate to Canada for testing.Critics have accused the federal government of failing to move swiftly to secure agreements with the likes of Pfizer and Moderna because it was focused on that failed deal.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56035306
My sister is a pharmacist in Toronto. She is personally vaccinating people right now as we speak. She said as of last week Ontario only had 200,000 Astra Zeneca vaccine doses allocated to it until April. 200,000 for 15 million people. She says that maybe Ontario may get more on Friday via the US sending more AZ but there’s no information about anything else. Until a few days ago, AZ could not be given to anyone over 64 which caused a lot of confusion and anger. And then Ford said in a conference that they were letting people get the AZ vaccine but they didn’t let the pharmacies know ahead of time, causing even more confusion.
My mom who is in her 80s, her second dose of Pfizer was just recently pushed out by 4 months because they don’t have enough supply. My aunt who is in her 70s couldn’t register (until recently as I mentioned) for a shot because they didn’t have any supply for her age range.
So no, Canada doesn’t have the doses it needs. It’s last in line because they started negotiating months after every other country and only after CanSino deal crumbled.
Canada signed deals with Pfizer and Moderna on August 5th. The EU signed a Pfizer + Biontech deal on September 9th. The US signed a Pfizer + Biontech deal on July 22nd.
And yet, Canada is substantially behind the EU on receiving doses, despite putting an order in more than a month earlier.
Given that the US only came to the agreement two weeks before Canada, I don't think Trudeau was sitting on his hands, waiting months for the CanSino deal to fall apart, before exploring alternative options. Seems to be a bit of an exaggeration by the Tories.
And yet, Canada is substantially behind the EU on receiving doses, despite putting an order in more than a month earlier.
Given that the US only came to the agreement two weeks before Canada, I don't think Trudeau was sitting on his hands, waiting months for the CanSino deal to fall apart, before exploring alternative options. Seems to be a bit of an exaggeration by the Tories.
>"What really pisses me off is that the US Gov had 30 million doses of Astra for several months and it it isn't even approved for use."
The drugmaker must apply for emergency use authorization before it can't be approved in the first place. They still have not applied for EUA as of today.
The drugmaker must apply for emergency use authorization before it can't be approved in the first place. They still have not applied for EUA as of today.
[deleted]
The time-wasting meme is a lie from the UK Government. The UK contract was signed after the EU contract. They posted the contract by accident which was picked up on in some of the press. It also had the same clauses as the EU.
On the other hand the UK still has a fully nationalised health service which means that it was in a much better position to be able to scale the vaccinations. That's probably the real reason that they're ahead.
Give it another 10 years of Tory rule and they'll "catch down" to the rest of the world.
On the other hand the UK still has a fully nationalised health service which means that it was in a much better position to be able to scale the vaccinations. That's probably the real reason that they're ahead.
Give it another 10 years of Tory rule and they'll "catch down" to the rest of the world.
This is a misunderstanding, as incidentally is the claim that the UK contract was signed three months earlier, because in both cases there is the assumption that there is "a" contract and no money flowed or contractual obligations were created before then. The reality is that in both cases, memoranda of understanding, investment agreements, and all sorts of other documents also exist and in some cases were signed earlier. In particular, there were agreements first with Oxford and then with AZ to start scaling capacity very early and even before the notional purchase contract signature in May (that's the one that was later superseded at the same time as the final EU contract was signed).
So it is simultaneously true that they signed a contract within a few days of each other, but also not quite the full picture.
So it is simultaneously true that they signed a contract within a few days of each other, but also not quite the full picture.
The original claim regarding the EU dragging its feet over signing the contract was made by the AstraZeneca CEO, not the UK government. And the UK's contract is not entirely the same as the EU's. For example, the EU waived its right to sue AstraZeneca for delivery failures, something the UK did not. This article by Politico does a good job of going beyond the rather reductive coverage (both pro-UK and pro-EU) in most of the press coverage of this affair, and digging more deeply into the facts:
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
The conclusion, at least as I interpret it, is that both the UK and the EU can reasonably claim to have priority, based on their respective contracts, but that the UK did a better job than the EU in making theirs enforceable. Hence, AstraZeneca has prioritised them, while the EU has been forced to resort to political rather than legal measures to attempt redress (publishing the contract, export controls, etc.). And the UK's closer ties to the AstraZeneca vaccine project likely did mean they started work on the UK supply chain somewhat earlier than in the EU, even although the final contracts were signed essentially simultaneously (one day apart).
I honestly don't really see this as an affair with clear good guys and bad guys, but it seems like most people are determined to do so, and inevitably along the lines of their pre-existing sympathies.
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
The conclusion, at least as I interpret it, is that both the UK and the EU can reasonably claim to have priority, based on their respective contracts, but that the UK did a better job than the EU in making theirs enforceable. Hence, AstraZeneca has prioritised them, while the EU has been forced to resort to political rather than legal measures to attempt redress (publishing the contract, export controls, etc.). And the UK's closer ties to the AstraZeneca vaccine project likely did mean they started work on the UK supply chain somewhat earlier than in the EU, even although the final contracts were signed essentially simultaneously (one day apart).
I honestly don't really see this as an affair with clear good guys and bad guys, but it seems like most people are determined to do so, and inevitably along the lines of their pre-existing sympathies.
Part of the issue, and this is something that both AZ and the EC fucked up in their contract negotiations is not thinking about this contingency. "Best reasonable efforts" is pretty clear... if you only have one customer.
If you have multiple customers, who signed slightly different contracts at different times, and who also have different side agreements regarding specific facilities they may have paid for in part or in whole, you really need to define how you make allocation decisions in case of shortfall so that everyone understands their risk exposure.
I will personally hold the EC responsible because although AZ has also messed up by not negotiating a clearer contract, it is the EC that indirectly works for me and it is their job to think about this on my and my family's behalf. Had they understood the consequences of being so far back in the production queue much earlier they could have spent more on upgrading production but it is not clear to me that they even understood this until January. While I'm sure that they are trying their best, and bad luck with Sanofi plays a part here as well (as does the incompetence of e.g. the Dutch government in managing distribution), I am pretty unimpressed with how they have dropped the ball here.
It's not good them saying, "oh AZ isn't producing as much as they thought they would". Ok, cool story bro but they're making a novel biological, so you should have anticipated this and done more to prepare plans B, C, all the way through F. Not just placed a few commercial orders and then hope it all works out.
If you have multiple customers, who signed slightly different contracts at different times, and who also have different side agreements regarding specific facilities they may have paid for in part or in whole, you really need to define how you make allocation decisions in case of shortfall so that everyone understands their risk exposure.
I will personally hold the EC responsible because although AZ has also messed up by not negotiating a clearer contract, it is the EC that indirectly works for me and it is their job to think about this on my and my family's behalf. Had they understood the consequences of being so far back in the production queue much earlier they could have spent more on upgrading production but it is not clear to me that they even understood this until January. While I'm sure that they are trying their best, and bad luck with Sanofi plays a part here as well (as does the incompetence of e.g. the Dutch government in managing distribution), I am pretty unimpressed with how they have dropped the ball here.
It's not good them saying, "oh AZ isn't producing as much as they thought they would". Ok, cool story bro but they're making a novel biological, so you should have anticipated this and done more to prepare plans B, C, all the way through F. Not just placed a few commercial orders and then hope it all works out.
I think the underlying problem is that there is just not any real cooperation on global vaccine distribution. Certainly the details about the enforceability of the various contracts wouldn't matter if the customers all talk between themselves and agree on what would be acceptable modifications of the delivery schedule.
In the event, it seems neither Boris nor Biden seem very interested in considering anyone else before they've scored enough points at home, and meanwhile real international cooperation on vaccine deliveries is dead. Oh well, hope not all trade follows that pattern shrug.
In the event, it seems neither Boris nor Biden seem very interested in considering anyone else before they've scored enough points at home, and meanwhile real international cooperation on vaccine deliveries is dead. Oh well, hope not all trade follows that pattern shrug.
But if the contract states there are no competing customers, and talks about 4 different sites, I'd say most bases should have been covered.
Az then turning around, and using three of these sites exclusively for UK production (since it was 'first') kinda defeats that.
Then there is indeed a difference in contract law, where the UK is far more focused on the letter of the contract, while European law is more about 'what could have been done'.
In the middle of a pandemic there isn't much we can do against pharmaceuticals. In the mean while has Az delivered more than Moderna until now. So, we should take what we can. Only thing we could blame the EC on is that we should not have based our strategy of vaccinating out on such an unreliable, inexperienced partner with a complicated biological process. Looking back and keeping the Pfizer vaccin European would have been less naive, but we would have started these vaccins wars. Will be interesting what the long term consequences are of having UK and US vaccinated two months sooner. I don't think Europe will forget this.
Then there is indeed a difference in contract law, where the UK is far more focused on the letter of the contract, while European law is more about 'what could have been done'.
In the middle of a pandemic there isn't much we can do against pharmaceuticals. In the mean while has Az delivered more than Moderna until now. So, we should take what we can. Only thing we could blame the EC on is that we should not have based our strategy of vaccinating out on such an unreliable, inexperienced partner with a complicated biological process. Looking back and keeping the Pfizer vaccin European would have been less naive, but we would have started these vaccins wars. Will be interesting what the long term consequences are of having UK and US vaccinated two months sooner. I don't think Europe will forget this.
But if the contract states there are no competing customers, and talks about 4 different sites, I'd say most bases should have been covered.
But does the AZ-EU Advance Purchase Agreement[1], which is the somewhat redacted document that was published, talk about 4 different sites? I haven't found anything about specific sites so far, nor any guarantee that there are no competing customers. Have I missed something?
In section 5.1, it does state that AZ shall use its BREs to manufacturer the Initial European Doses within the EU. Then in section 5.4, it states that AZ shall use its BREs to manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within the EU, and that specifically for section 5.4 only, that includes the UK. If the exception proves the rule, those sections together appear to imply that AZ must try to manufacture those initial batches for the EU within the EU not including the UK, and then any subsequent manufacture can be done in either the EU or UK (and otherwise there are some additional provisions about other possibilities). Maybe a lawyer can comment on the choice of language there, but it seems awkwardly written to me.
[1] https://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2021/02/19/1613725900577_AZ_FIRMAT...
But does the AZ-EU Advance Purchase Agreement[1], which is the somewhat redacted document that was published, talk about 4 different sites? I haven't found anything about specific sites so far, nor any guarantee that there are no competing customers. Have I missed something?
In section 5.1, it does state that AZ shall use its BREs to manufacturer the Initial European Doses within the EU. Then in section 5.4, it states that AZ shall use its BREs to manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within the EU, and that specifically for section 5.4 only, that includes the UK. If the exception proves the rule, those sections together appear to imply that AZ must try to manufacture those initial batches for the EU within the EU not including the UK, and then any subsequent manufacture can be done in either the EU or UK (and otherwise there are some additional provisions about other possibilities). Maybe a lawyer can comment on the choice of language there, but it seems awkwardly written to me.
[1] https://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2021/02/19/1613725900577_AZ_FIRMAT...
It does not say there is no competing contract, it says no contract would prevent fulfilment of its contract. The EU contract stipulates that the delivery schedule is only an estimate, so another contract that was estimated to permit that delivery schedule would not conflict. It also seems to stipulate that the initial 300M doses will be manufactured within the EU, but this is incidental to this claim.
Sources? I've heard the "EU signed before UK" multiple times now, but nobody ever links to a source. It just seems unlikely, no? Why would they be so catastrophically far behind in that case?
Similarly - the NHS is great, but not unique. Norway for example has a system akin to the NHS (and so do many EU countries) and there's no correlation there. Norway is waaaaay behind the UK and the US. Again, it seems unlikely that the NHS is the cause.
It's obvious you hate the Tories, but that shouldn't cloud your judgment to such a degree that you fail to celebrate the real achievement of the UK's vaccination rate.
Similarly - the NHS is great, but not unique. Norway for example has a system akin to the NHS (and so do many EU countries) and there's no correlation there. Norway is waaaaay behind the UK and the US. Again, it seems unlikely that the NHS is the cause.
It's obvious you hate the Tories, but that shouldn't cloud your judgment to such a degree that you fail to celebrate the real achievement of the UK's vaccination rate.
It's my impression that the vaccination program in Denmark is very efficient just like in the UK. However, the speed is limited by the vaccine imports which are governed by deals made by the EU. I would think that Norway is similarly limited by imports. (They are not in the EU so probably are making deals at a national level.)
Individual member states can approve their own vaccines. Look at Hungary. Italy wants to use and manufacture the Russian vaccine, but the EMA hasn’t approved it yet. Why not?
> the Russian vaccine, but the EMA hasn’t approved it yet. Why not?
Because nobody applied for approval for the longest time. It was just a few weeks ago that a German company decided to apply for this approval. Now the wheels of assessment are turning.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-starts-rolling-review-...
Because nobody applied for approval for the longest time. It was just a few weeks ago that a German company decided to apply for this approval. Now the wheels of assessment are turning.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-starts-rolling-review-...
The EU “time-wasting meme” comes from a direct quote from the AZ CEO.
According to Dominic Cummings recent select committee hearing, the vaccine programme was largely built outside/adjacent to any existing NHS processes. It was given NHS branding for public trust reasons (just like the new-from-the-ground-up Track and Trace endeavour).
According to Dominic Cummings recent select committee hearing, the vaccine programme was largely built outside/adjacent to any existing NHS processes. It was given NHS branding for public trust reasons (just like the new-from-the-ground-up Track and Trace endeavour).
The vaccination rollout programme is very much NHS. Vaccination is something the NHS does. So that shouldn’t be surprising.
Believe Cummings point was that The Department of Health wasn’t in control as it is in terms of test and trace. So NHS + Cabinet office (and not DHSC’s normal red tape, funding models) = success.
However, I think “sources” in the vaccination task force have said Cummings is full of it.
Believe Cummings point was that The Department of Health wasn’t in control as it is in terms of test and trace. So NHS + Cabinet office (and not DHSC’s normal red tape, funding models) = success.
However, I think “sources” in the vaccination task force have said Cummings is full of it.
Administering each vaccine seems to be 100% NHS. While it is quite likely that Cummings is full of it, he did specifically mention that the vaccine task force works outside of the Department of Health.
“That is why we had to take the vaccine process out of the Department of Health.”
Q193, https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1911/html/
“That is why we had to take the vaccine process out of the Department of Health.”
Q193, https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1911/html/
Cummings is a self-serving apparatchik with an eye to his future reputation so of course he’s trying to claim he was involved in the one successful program initiated by the government. I’m not sure why you give his claims any credence given his proven lies elsewhere.
I’m no fan of his and ad hominem arguments don’t help anyone. Considering the lack of transparency across the whole vaccine programme, I think the fact he made the point several times without being called out (in a committee hearing designed to call out any BS) is quite pertinent.
He lied to the public, repeatedly, in a very obvious way. He was also in that segment being fed softball questions by Aaron Bell, Conservative MP which were probably arranged in advance.
I therefore don't in any way trust his self-assessment of his own department's work and the 'vaccine task force' he set up, which incidentally hired some of his associates, who were paid very well, for example the PR firm:
https://www.ft.com/content/6159d5b7-171c-49ed-b318-144efcc4c...
A director of the public relations firm paid £670,000 to advise the head of the UK government's coronavirus vaccine task force is a longstanding business associate of Dominic Cummings.
I therefore don't in any way trust his self-assessment of his own department's work and the 'vaccine task force' he set up, which incidentally hired some of his associates, who were paid very well, for example the PR firm:
https://www.ft.com/content/6159d5b7-171c-49ed-b318-144efcc4c...
A director of the public relations firm paid £670,000 to advise the head of the UK government's coronavirus vaccine task force is a longstanding business associate of Dominic Cummings.
Gosh, that article is incredibly revealing of some serious cronyism going on. It does also, however, confirm that the task force was operating outside of the DoH as per the original point.
No, EU countries definitely don’t get as many doses from AZ. Distribution is NOT the reason the UK are ahead, but earlier shipments.
> On the other hand the UK still has a fully nationalised health service which means that it was in a much better position to be able to scale the vaccinations. That's probably the real reason that they're ahead.
EU doesn't have problems with vaccination but with supply of vaccines, we use up all we can get (at least until AZ issues, now people are afraid to vaccinate with it).
There are many (all?) countries in EU that have health service nationalised in EU. The only country I know that doesn't is US.
EU doesn't have problems with vaccination but with supply of vaccines, we use up all we can get (at least until AZ issues, now people are afraid to vaccinate with it).
There are many (all?) countries in EU that have health service nationalised in EU. The only country I know that doesn't is US.
Public Health care =/= nationalized health service
e.g. germany is holding up a ton of vaccines for the second shot right now, so no, we are not using everything we have. Supply is one thing, distribution is another. And the EU has trouble sorting out the latter, a problem that will hurt even when supply increases to a point were there will be more doses than needed around June/July.
e.g. germany is holding up a ton of vaccines for the second shot right now, so no, we are not using everything we have. Supply is one thing, distribution is another. And the EU has trouble sorting out the latter, a problem that will hurt even when supply increases to a point were there will be more doses than needed around June/July.
I'm genuinely curious what's the difference between public and nationalized health service?
Nationalized for me means that something is owned by state (and for me it is the same as public).
(You are right I forgot about second dozes, but I think that's a good thing considering manufacturers are not supplying us on schedule - and some stupid countries - like mine - use up all vaccines and hope that there will be a second doze in 6 weeks).
(You are right I forgot about second dozes, but I think that's a good thing considering manufacturers are not supplying us on schedule - and some stupid countries - like mine - use up all vaccines and hope that there will be a second doze in 6 weeks).
Sure it’s private companies but it wasn’t random chance that led to AstraZeneca (a British–Swedish company) working with the Oxford group in the U.K. or Pfizer (an American company) with BioNTech. It’s a lot easier to control production when it happens within your borders (eg Trump did have some executive order banning exports but this was just symbolic when the defence production act was invoked.)
BioNTech is German and Pfizer is American. Am I missing something?
Pfizer has big factories in the US for making vaccines. How many does BioNTech have in Germany?
They (BioNTech) themselves have only a few in Germany (2 or 3), but it's produced by other companies for them now as well totalling to around seven according to this German source: https://www.pharma-food.de/markt/standorte-corona-impfstoff-.... I say around because not all do the whole production sometimes only parts of it as it seems. Didn't dig very deep into it.
The current bottleneck in the Pfizer vaccine production is the last manufacturing stage — combining the mRNA with lipid nanoparticles. There are currently two plants for it, one in the US and one in Belgium. The US plant only delivers to the USA, the Belgian to the rest of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-...
What I would like to know is why did we not use the year we had to build out local manufacturing capability? Given the gravity and cost of the pandemic surely we could have thrown a few billion at it and done a conflict-style mobilisation to get manufacturing capacity far above what is needed as a redundancy measure.
Two reasons.
1. Planners are penny-wise, and pound foolish.
2. Everyone's just blindly hoping that we won't have to repeat the quarantine-wait-a-year-and-a-half-for-vaccines for the inevitable tide of COVID-19 variants, that will be evolving in the world's unvaccinated populations.
1. Planners are penny-wise, and pound foolish.
2. Everyone's just blindly hoping that we won't have to repeat the quarantine-wait-a-year-and-a-half-for-vaccines for the inevitable tide of COVID-19 variants, that will be evolving in the world's unvaccinated populations.
I meant legitimate reasons. If those are the only reasons I'll be expecting significant jail time to be handed out.
Those are legitimate reasons.
Look, the people who should have been sorting out vaccines were running around like headless chickens trying to deal with a global pandemic.
Nobody has experience with this, and pretty much all Western governments thought they were done post June 2020, which clearly wasn't the case.
They focused on other things (and there were lots of other things to focus on), and it's caused massive problems now.
I completely agree that we should have built more manufacturing, but we didn't know which vaccines would work at the time.
To be honest, the only people who could have actually made this happen was the US Federal Government in 2020, and they were focused on different things.
Look, the people who should have been sorting out vaccines were running around like headless chickens trying to deal with a global pandemic.
Nobody has experience with this, and pretty much all Western governments thought they were done post June 2020, which clearly wasn't the case.
They focused on other things (and there were lots of other things to focus on), and it's caused massive problems now.
I completely agree that we should have built more manufacturing, but we didn't know which vaccines would work at the time.
To be honest, the only people who could have actually made this happen was the US Federal Government in 2020, and they were focused on different things.
Your expectations of the people we trust to manage society for us are way too low. Maybe this is part of the problem with the rot of western civilisation. We’ve let our standards slip to pitiful levels. If I could foresee this a year ago sitting at home on my sofa with practically zero experience they could too. It is their job to and lack of specific experience doesn’t excuse the lack of application of basic and universal risk mitigation strategies. It doesn’t matter which vaccines would prove to work or not. You ramp up manufacturing capabilities and tooling on the 10 most likely candidates. It’s called hedging and the whole world knows about this strategy for a long time. No epidemiologist thought it would be over in June 2020. All the messaging was and is 2 years at least.
Or your expectations are too high?
Like, this has never happened before, we dodged sars, mers and swine flu so absolutely nobody was prepared.
And have you offered to supply your government with all your vast supply chain knowledge? This stuff is complicated, and one link in the chain failing reduces all capacity.
And have you offered to supply your government with all your vast supply chain knowledge? This stuff is complicated, and one link in the chain failing reduces all capacity.
I don't know what other countries did but the UK did start doing this.
There was lots of talk about cronyism when Kate Bingham was appointed to run the vaccine task force but taking bets and investing early even when outcomes weren't know is one thing the UK seems to have done well in the last year
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/02/07/news/kate_bingh...
There was lots of talk about cronyism when Kate Bingham was appointed to run the vaccine task force but taking bets and investing early even when outcomes weren't know is one thing the UK seems to have done well in the last year
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/02/07/news/kate_bingh...
BioNtech has entered into an alliance[1] with 13 European companies to boost the vaccine production, as well as Chinese Fosun Pharma[2]. The agreement with Pfizer was important for the initial trials and production launch of the vaccine, but it's not binding and BioNtech is free to license the vaccine to other manufacturers (most likely under a different brand name from Comirnaty).
Also, BioNTech has partnered with German Evonik[3] and Merck[4] to accelerate vital lipids production by the second half of 2021.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/biontech-recruits-rivals-to-boo...
[2] https://endpts.com/biontech-teams-up-with-fosun-pharma-to-te...
[3] https://corporate.evonik.com/en/evonik-strengthens-strategic...
[4] https://www.merckgroup.com/en/news/biontech-strategic-partne...
Also, BioNTech has partnered with German Evonik[3] and Merck[4] to accelerate vital lipids production by the second half of 2021.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/biontech-recruits-rivals-to-boo...
[2] https://endpts.com/biontech-teams-up-with-fosun-pharma-to-te...
[3] https://corporate.evonik.com/en/evonik-strengthens-strategic...
[4] https://www.merckgroup.com/en/news/biontech-strategic-partne...
Trump never invoked the Defense Production Act.
But Biden did, right?
Yep
They both did. Trump did it for medical supplies a year earlier:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/understanding-bidens-invocation-...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/understanding-bidens-invocation-...
> President Trump first invoked the DPA in late March 2020 in response to the coronavirus pandemic...limiting the export of medical goods, increasing domestic production of masks and ventilators
https://www.lawfareblog.com/understanding-bidens-invocation-...
Nothing in there on vaccine export but one would assume it is implied.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/understanding-bidens-invocation-...
Nothing in there on vaccine export but one would assume it is implied.
It is not I don't think, but I could be wrong.
Trump invoked the DPA for:
* protective equipment and ventilators
* specifically 3M and companies for masks and ventilators
* testing swabs
* diagnostic systems and assays
---
https://web.archive.org/web/20200318233011/https://www.white...
> Accordingly, I find that health and medical resources needed to respond to the spread of COVID-19, including personal protective equipment and ventilators, meet the criteria specified in section 101(b) of the Act (50 U.S.C. 4511(b)).
Note that this is the executive order for allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to do things...
> (c) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue such orders and adopt and revise appropriate rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement this order.
It wasn't specifically saying "you, company, make this."
---
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/02/trump-expands-dpa-o...
> President Donald Trump on Thursday invoked the Defense Production Act to push 3M and six major medical device companies to produce protective masks and ventilators needed for the coronavirus outbreak, bowing to weeks of pressure to expand the federal government’s use of the emergency statute.
---
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/19/trump-dpa-testing-s...
> President Donald Trump will use the Defense Production Act to compel an unnamed company to produce 20 million more coronavirus testing swabs every month — weeks after labs and public health officials started warning that shortages of these swabs were hurting efforts to ramp up testing nationwide
---
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/20/trump-administrati...
> These acquisitions will fulfill a large-volume purchase of diagnostic systems and assays for COVID-19 testing and will expedite shipments of these systems and assays to every nursing home certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid services (CMS) with a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) Certificate of Waiver – approximately 14,000 nursing homes – in the United States.
---
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950...
Additionally - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/trump-vow...
> Trump raised the specter of invoking the Defense Production Act -- which allows the president to require companies to prioritize contracts deemed essential for national security -- if the U.S. struggles to obtain the vaccine for its citizens.
> “If we have any problems, we will be instituting the Defense Production Act and make sure we don’t have any problems,” he said.
Trump did not invoke the DPA for vaccines.
* protective equipment and ventilators
* specifically 3M and companies for masks and ventilators
* testing swabs
* diagnostic systems and assays
---
https://web.archive.org/web/20200318233011/https://www.white...
> Accordingly, I find that health and medical resources needed to respond to the spread of COVID-19, including personal protective equipment and ventilators, meet the criteria specified in section 101(b) of the Act (50 U.S.C. 4511(b)).
Note that this is the executive order for allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to do things...
> (c) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue such orders and adopt and revise appropriate rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement this order.
It wasn't specifically saying "you, company, make this."
---
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/02/trump-expands-dpa-o...
> President Donald Trump on Thursday invoked the Defense Production Act to push 3M and six major medical device companies to produce protective masks and ventilators needed for the coronavirus outbreak, bowing to weeks of pressure to expand the federal government’s use of the emergency statute.
---
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/19/trump-dpa-testing-s...
> President Donald Trump will use the Defense Production Act to compel an unnamed company to produce 20 million more coronavirus testing swabs every month — weeks after labs and public health officials started warning that shortages of these swabs were hurting efforts to ramp up testing nationwide
---
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/20/trump-administrati...
> These acquisitions will fulfill a large-volume purchase of diagnostic systems and assays for COVID-19 testing and will expedite shipments of these systems and assays to every nursing home certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid services (CMS) with a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) Certificate of Waiver – approximately 14,000 nursing homes – in the United States.
---
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950...
Additionally - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/trump-vow...
> Trump raised the specter of invoking the Defense Production Act -- which allows the president to require companies to prioritize contracts deemed essential for national security -- if the U.S. struggles to obtain the vaccine for its citizens.
> “If we have any problems, we will be instituting the Defense Production Act and make sure we don’t have any problems,” he said.
Trump did not invoke the DPA for vaccines.
He didn't need to, he used other methods -- signed an executive order putting Americans ahead for anything produced in the US.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trump-signs-order-to-put-ame...
Forced US allies to source from Pfizer's Belgium plant instead.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trump-signs-order-to-put-ame...
Forced US allies to source from Pfizer's Belgium plant instead.
Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to prevent states from addressing COVID outbreaks in the meat packing industry.
Some people might say that deliberately accelerating the pandemic wasn't the best use of the DPA, but he certainly did use it.
Some people might say that deliberately accelerating the pandemic wasn't the best use of the DPA, but he certainly did use it.
I'd argue that in a time of crisis, the EU government is being negligent if it's not forcing domestic production capacity to prioritize output for domestic use.
If it nationalized the factories, or seized supply it hadn't ordered, I might consider it the bad guy. But irrespective of who gets the vaccines first, the EU has already bought the some portion of the supply.
If it nationalized the factories, or seized supply it hadn't ordered, I might consider it the bad guy. But irrespective of who gets the vaccines first, the EU has already bought the some portion of the supply.
The problem with this statement is that the EU is not a government - it is an intergovernmental body.
Nationalization etc. happens on the national level only.
Nationalization etc. happens on the national level only.
Yes, but wrt nationalization, that was more a statement of where I would draw the line if I had to choose whether the EU was being a good/bad actor rather than the EU's actual capacity as an organization.
I would argye that the EU merits government status, given the degree to which it dictates standards in the eurozone. Even though it is fairly weak, and lacks enforcement capacity on its own, my understanding is that the EU as a body has the capacity to set standards for the block as a whole, restricting export of certain goods like the vaccine for example. I could be wrong, though?
I would argye that the EU merits government status, given the degree to which it dictates standards in the eurozone. Even though it is fairly weak, and lacks enforcement capacity on its own, my understanding is that the EU as a body has the capacity to set standards for the block as a whole, restricting export of certain goods like the vaccine for example. I could be wrong, though?
> I'd argue that in a time of crisis, the EU government is being negligent if it's not forcing domestic production capacity to prioritize output for domestic use.
I understand that viewpoint but feel like the long term consequences politically would be too high. We live in a globalised world where most of the richest countries do little of their own manufacturing. If we start blocking exports in times of crisis the foundations of that system would be damaged.
I understand that viewpoint but feel like the long term consequences politically would be too high. We live in a globalised world where most of the richest countries do little of their own manufacturing. If we start blocking exports in times of crisis the foundations of that system would be damaged.
The original comment, and this retort, sums up the argument in a nutshell. I see both sides of this one, offered both of these arguments to a friend last night. It's complicated, like most of these things.
Damn I hate saying this... but, to be fair to the pharma corps... ugh, I feel sick for saying that... manufacturing vaccines isn't like making plastic cups and straws. I'm in no way qualified to explain pharmaceutical production, but I highly doubt it's that simple to just Thanos snap produce these things. Equipment, QC, materials, whatever, it takes time. This on top of still having to produce all the other drugs we need to keep their pockets lined. Part two, I remember seeing something regarding specialty freezer storage for shelf life and general transport. I believe that's still valid? Not everywhere has the logistical bandwidth for transport or storage of this. Then take into the legally abiding procedures to ensure the safety of the drug itself, which we should all be thankful for. Piss poor pharma is already a problem as is, we don't need more issues. Then general legal hurdles of deployment and tracking, yada yada. This isn't like sewing up a mask, bubble wrap Fedex it out. Damn it, I defended pharma. I'm going to Hell for that.
Nobody ever said the job's going to be easy,hence so few doing it and hence such a high reward,in a case of success.
The world as we now it runs on supply chains. And yet, pople still think electricity comes from a plug, milk from bottle in a supermarket. As does toilet paper, and we all know how that worked out last year. That people have the expectation that once a contract for a vaccine is signed, and the vaccine is approved, enough doses are immediately available to inculate everyone id dangerous. Especially since a lot of politicians seem to think exactly the same way.
[deleted]
So both UK and US are bad guys since they're blocking all exports?
Per the above, no.
The UK purchased right of first refusal on the first 100million doses of Oxford/AZ produced in the UK factories that they funded.
The EU also funded factories (in the EU) but did not purchase right of first refusal only best efforts contracts.
The USA has a full ban on exports till they are ready to export.
The UK purchased right of first refusal on the first 100million doses of Oxford/AZ produced in the UK factories that they funded.
The EU also funded factories (in the EU) but did not purchase right of first refusal only best efforts contracts.
The USA has a full ban on exports till they are ready to export.
There is no UK prohibition on exports.
The UK is not blocking exports. The EU were free to conclude contracts with the (not very productive) UK manufacturers at the same time HM government was doing so.
The UK is not blocking exports. The EU were free to conclude contracts with the (not very productive) UK manufacturers at the same time HM government was doing so.
I’m aware of the US blocking exports of certain things but as far as I know the UK isn’t. If you have evidence proving otherwise I’d love to see.
> Whichever country is contractually at the front of the line will have their order fulfilled first/according to the terms of the contracts.
nope, the UK and the US have a "first us, then the rest" policy for exports, that the EU does not.
nope, the UK and the US have a "first us, then the rest" policy for exports, that the EU does not.
To be nonsense it would need to also not have happened in practice. The UK and the US have not exported the vaccines and kept them all for themselves. This is fact not nonsense.
The UK is already blocking exports. They basically paid off AZ to have the export ban written down in the contract.
You’re being fed misinformation. EU countries signed before the UK.
CEO of AstraZeneca: "But the UK contract was signed three months before the European vaccine deal." "When we entered the agreement with Oxford, they had already been working with the UK government on this. "
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_...
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_...
Its more complicated than that. These deal are not executed, the moment the final signature is signed.
Instead, there are multiple steps along the way, that matter much more than some singular data point of a very long contract process that has many stages.
Instead, there are multiple steps along the way, that matter much more than some singular data point of a very long contract process that has many stages.
Can you give a citation for that. The generally agreed figure is that it was done 3 months later. Bear in mind, the EU has still not even approved production from the AZ Halix plant. EU has generally been doing things slower than the UK.
Sure.
Here you go - https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...
The Vaccine Alliance did a contract with AstraZeneca before the UK. The Alliance was Germany, Italy, Netherlands and France.
AstraZeneca says this "doesn't count". I believe this was around 1 month before the UK agreement was signed.
Here's another article that goes over it https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-s...
And here's the press release up on Reuters https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...
https://uk.ambafrance.org/Inclusive-Vaccines-Alliance-reache...
And in the French embassy..
You're being fed BS. AZ signed with the Alliance, that contract was turned over to the EU comission. AZ is most likely caught up in giving their vaccine to the UK first and they are lying constantly. See the controversy on their efficacy in the US.
The Vaccine Alliance did a contract with AstraZeneca before the UK. The Alliance was Germany, Italy, Netherlands and France.
AstraZeneca says this "doesn't count". I believe this was around 1 month before the UK agreement was signed.
Here's another article that goes over it https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-s...
And here's the press release up on Reuters https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...
https://uk.ambafrance.org/Inclusive-Vaccines-Alliance-reache...
And in the French embassy..
You're being fed BS. AZ signed with the Alliance, that contract was turned over to the EU comission. AZ is most likely caught up in giving their vaccine to the UK first and they are lying constantly. See the controversy on their efficacy in the US.
Hmm. I did a quick scan read over the Politico article, but I'm confused. It doesn't seem to be about contracts and the words "contract" and "alliance" don't appear in it. Did you copy/paste the wrong link?
I also tried the two France24 links. They're both 404 Not Founds. The final link is also a 404. That's a bit odd. Where are you getting these links from? At any rate, the result is you've not provided any evidence that AZ is lying, which is a very bold claim to begin with. Why would they do that? AZ is part Swedish and has a Greek CEO, it's not like they're a 100% pure British firm of tub-thumping Brexit supporting patriots who inexplicably don't want to supply Europe with vaccine. Although by now I wouldn't be surprised if they're thoroughly sick of the EU and its games.
Meanwhile the EU has:
a) The motive to lie.
b) A track record of doing so repeatedly, a completely undeniable one.
It's ridiculous how often the EU or leaders of members states have said totally untrue things about this vaccine or the UK, I made a list at some point (see my old comments) and within a week there'd been another two lies coming out of Europe. I'm not the one being fed BS here - in many of those cases Europe's leaders have already admitted they'd said untrue things!
I also tried the two France24 links. They're both 404 Not Founds. The final link is also a 404. That's a bit odd. Where are you getting these links from? At any rate, the result is you've not provided any evidence that AZ is lying, which is a very bold claim to begin with. Why would they do that? AZ is part Swedish and has a Greek CEO, it's not like they're a 100% pure British firm of tub-thumping Brexit supporting patriots who inexplicably don't want to supply Europe with vaccine. Although by now I wouldn't be surprised if they're thoroughly sick of the EU and its games.
Meanwhile the EU has:
a) The motive to lie.
b) A track record of doing so repeatedly, a completely undeniable one.
It's ridiculous how often the EU or leaders of members states have said totally untrue things about this vaccine or the UK, I made a list at some point (see my old comments) and within a week there'd been another two lies coming out of Europe. I'm not the one being fed BS here - in many of those cases Europe's leaders have already admitted they'd said untrue things!
its definitly weird those links 404ed. They were there before.
If you assume the EU has a motive to lie and the UK and AZ does not, you are immediately demonstrating bias.
If you assume the EU has a motive to lie and the UK and AZ does not, you are immediately demonstrating bias.
The EU hasn't approved AZ Halix because AZ hasn't applied yet: https://www.ft.com/content/8e2e994e-9750-4de1-9cbc-31becd2ae... (apologies for the paywall).
Relevant quote:
Asked about the Halix situation, the commission said on Friday that the EMA was ready to fast-track authorisation of new production facilities once it received an application and the necessary information from AstraZeneca.
Relevant quote:
Asked about the Halix situation, the commission said on Friday that the EMA was ready to fast-track authorisation of new production facilities once it received an application and the necessary information from AstraZeneca.
I don't really understand what's going on with the Halix plant, but surely there must be more to it than that. There's presumably no way the EMA are just sitting there going "well we can't do anything until they mail us over the papers".
Certainly the UK MHRA have been working closely with the companies to move the process along very quickly, as has been confirmed by both the government and the companies themselves.
I'm curious to know what's really going on at the Halix plant.
Certainly the UK MHRA have been working closely with the companies to move the process along very quickly, as has been confirmed by both the government and the companies themselves.
I'm curious to know what's really going on at the Halix plant.
How could EMA approve the certification of the factory if AZ does not want to and does not provide the necessary information?
Knowing how these sorts of regulations work, there's probably considerable scope for speeding things up by parallelising. That's apparently how the MHRA went faster. Usually the regulator would demand a complete pack of information in specific formats, etc, so you have to wait for all the components to be ready before submission (which may well cost money, I'm not sure, but for corporate approvals like that it often does).
In the absence of further guidance and given the EU's hostility to them so far, AZ may be waiting to ensure it has all its ducks in a row before submitting.
In the UK the regulator was willing to do partial processing of applications in parallel with the project being executed, which isn't normal and poses obvious complexities, but can speed things up when latency is what matters most. If the EMA hasn't indicated any willingness to do that, and it's not the first time they've come up with this "we're waiting for submission" business, then it may be causing artificial delays.
In the absence of further guidance and given the EU's hostility to them so far, AZ may be waiting to ensure it has all its ducks in a row before submitting.
In the UK the regulator was willing to do partial processing of applications in parallel with the project being executed, which isn't normal and poses obvious complexities, but can speed things up when latency is what matters most. If the EMA hasn't indicated any willingness to do that, and it's not the first time they've come up with this "we're waiting for submission" business, then it may be causing artificial delays.
It is in EMAs interest to do incremental processing and this is what they have been doing in other cases.
It is in AZs interest to not start the process which would make the factory available for EU, where AZ is not willing to deliver at this time. (Instead, they ship doses even from the EU factories to UK and elsewhere.)
Given this, you would need something concrete to back your speculation to the contrary.
It is in AZs interest to not start the process which would make the factory available for EU, where AZ is not willing to deliver at this time. (Instead, they ship doses even from the EU factories to UK and elsewhere.)
Given this, you would need something concrete to back your speculation to the contrary.
Can you provide a citation for the EMA doing parallel processing because I have yet to hear about that and in fact read the opposite.
It's not in AZ's interest to keep an expensive factory idled in an environment of unprecedented demand, obviously. They want to sell vaccine to whoever will take it. AZ is "unwilling" to deliver to the EU because it has signed contracts putting other countries first and they are able to consume the entire supply. Once the UK is done, they will suddenly become "willing" (if such a term makes sense when contracts are involved) to deliver to the EU as well.
So to be clear, you are describing factual statements as speculation (which is wrong) and then making spurious claims about AZ/EMA's claimed interests instead of what they're actually doing.
It's not in AZ's interest to keep an expensive factory idled in an environment of unprecedented demand, obviously. They want to sell vaccine to whoever will take it. AZ is "unwilling" to deliver to the EU because it has signed contracts putting other countries first and they are able to consume the entire supply. Once the UK is done, they will suddenly become "willing" (if such a term makes sense when contracts are involved) to deliver to the EU as well.
So to be clear, you are describing factual statements as speculation (which is wrong) and then making spurious claims about AZ/EMA's claimed interests instead of what they're actually doing.
> Can you provide a citation for the EMA doing parallel processing
"Rolling review" is the term I've seen typically used for the process that you described, and Wikipedia has references for various rolling reviews by EMA starting with the following: "In October 2020, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) started 'rolling reviews' of the vaccines known as COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1-SARS-CoV-2) and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_de...
"Rolling review" is the term I've seen typically used for the process that you described, and Wikipedia has references for various rolling reviews by EMA starting with the following: "In October 2020, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) started 'rolling reviews' of the vaccines known as COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1-SARS-CoV-2) and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_de...
Then I wonder how it has ended in a situation where a factory is apparently ready to go to produce but is waiting for regulatory approval, and the regulators are claiming they're waiting for paperwork to be submitted. That shouldn't be possible in a genuinely parallel review process.
reddotX(1)
The official line from these companies always seems to be that they were able to ramp up production to make the vaccines for the UK because the UK committed to its order signficantly earlier than the EU. (I've never seen this next bit said explicitly, but the subtext, as I read it, is that the EU was holding out for a better price.)
Of course I don't know the accuracy of such statements. But if that is true, you could certainly argue it would unfair that the EU should benefit from production capacity that only exists because of commitments made by the UK, and the location of the factories is fairly irrelevant to that.
You could counter argue that I am mistakenly treating the "EU" and "UK" as a single individual person each who deserves to suffer the consequences of their actions, when in fact the people suffering are individual citizens who had almost no control over the negotiation process. But, on the flip side, if companies cannot rely on agreements made during difficult negotiations to be honoured then it will be harder to secure such agreements in future.
Of course I don't know the accuracy of such statements. But if that is true, you could certainly argue it would unfair that the EU should benefit from production capacity that only exists because of commitments made by the UK, and the location of the factories is fairly irrelevant to that.
You could counter argue that I am mistakenly treating the "EU" and "UK" as a single individual person each who deserves to suffer the consequences of their actions, when in fact the people suffering are individual citizens who had almost no control over the negotiation process. But, on the flip side, if companies cannot rely on agreements made during difficult negotiations to be honoured then it will be harder to secure such agreements in future.
A good summary of EU problems is described [1]. Washington and London understood that crucial to mass procurement was throwing large amounts of R&D money at many companies in hopes some would work. Brussels focused on haggling down the cost per dose. Europeans pay a few dollars less per dose but ended near the back of the shipment line.
[1] http://archive.is/M0bjW
[1] http://archive.is/M0bjW
Which is too simplistic. The UK, the US and the EU depend on their local manufacturing capacity. That capacity is limited, regardless initial delivery schedules were sufficient for herd immunity in the EU around June/July with a significant surplus in Q3/4. That surplus was slated to be shared with developing countries.
Solid plan, solid procurement strategy. But after that procurement, nothing. No coordination of national campaigns with manufacturers, no planning on local and regional level, no operational procurement plan. And the list goes on.
Solid plan, solid procurement strategy. But after that procurement, nothing. No coordination of national campaigns with manufacturers, no planning on local and regional level, no operational procurement plan. And the list goes on.
So why the UK/US numbers are way ahead of EU?
Good question. Based on my experience in SCM I would say a combination of circumstances, luck and better management.
The UK had a head start (due to earlier approval of the AZ vaccine, they were the second ones after the Russins and before the US), of one and a half months or so. The UK gotlucky that AZs prodution in the UK went smoother than the one in Belgium. And cirumstances are in favour of the UK, initial deliviery volumes are low accross the board, regardless of supplier, and a smaller population allows higher per capita numbers in these cases.
The main reason so, IMHO, is the UKs approach and management of the campaign. With NHS, theUK coud build upon one entitiy to run things, the UK streched the second shot and didn't hold inventory back for it. And the UK seems to have proper operational supply chain management in place.
The EU (meaning individual member states) on the other hand has a larger population, at least 27 individual entities (Germany adds 16 individual states to that), o central planning (Germany has none on the federal level and I haven't seen any on state level so far neither), no coherent strategy. Appointment managment doesn't work. The EU also screwed up supply by ordering more in january (volumes that weren't needed) which resulted in further delays. And the list goes on.
In a nut shell, the UK didnt screw with the suppliers supply chains up to end f production and has a grip on the down stream supply chain up to peoples arms. The EU screwed with suppliers and has zero plan about everything after doses are delivered to a national distribution hub.
EDIT: The EU has to coordinate 27 nations and has to avoid an EU-internal bidding war. The UK doesn't.
The UK had a head start (due to earlier approval of the AZ vaccine, they were the second ones after the Russins and before the US), of one and a half months or so. The UK gotlucky that AZs prodution in the UK went smoother than the one in Belgium. And cirumstances are in favour of the UK, initial deliviery volumes are low accross the board, regardless of supplier, and a smaller population allows higher per capita numbers in these cases.
The main reason so, IMHO, is the UKs approach and management of the campaign. With NHS, theUK coud build upon one entitiy to run things, the UK streched the second shot and didn't hold inventory back for it. And the UK seems to have proper operational supply chain management in place.
The EU (meaning individual member states) on the other hand has a larger population, at least 27 individual entities (Germany adds 16 individual states to that), o central planning (Germany has none on the federal level and I haven't seen any on state level so far neither), no coherent strategy. Appointment managment doesn't work. The EU also screwed up supply by ordering more in january (volumes that weren't needed) which resulted in further delays. And the list goes on.
In a nut shell, the UK didnt screw with the suppliers supply chains up to end f production and has a grip on the down stream supply chain up to peoples arms. The EU screwed with suppliers and has zero plan about everything after doses are delivered to a national distribution hub.
EDIT: The EU has to coordinate 27 nations and has to avoid an EU-internal bidding war. The UK doesn't.
It's worth remembering the UK bought 3x as many doses per capita than the EU (of AZ), and its domestic manufacturing capacity anyway has to serve a much smaller population. The luck in large part is the Ox/AZ was successful and fast, and the UK had placed a very large order for it.
Yep. The EU on the other hand spread the risk across multiple suppliers. One of which fell through so far, Sanofi if memory serves well. I for my part have no issue with the procurement strategy. The contracts, assuming they are all similar to the AZ one, are crap so.
And after contract signature, the EU basically took a step back. The EU did tell member states that logistics will be critical, and that logistics will be up to member states to sort out. Kind of right, but also kind of lazy. Even lazier are member states that failed to sort logistics out. Especially those that were fast to blame the EU for that.
And after contract signature, the EU basically took a step back. The EU did tell member states that logistics will be critical, and that logistics will be up to member states to sort out. Kind of right, but also kind of lazy. Even lazier are member states that failed to sort logistics out. Especially those that were fast to blame the EU for that.
This whole thing is not EU business, member states are responsible for medical issues.
The procurement, and the procurement alone, was something the member states decided ad-hoc to pool in this particular instance, in order to avoid exactly the kind of situation between member states that we currently have with the UK.
And that has actually worked remarkably well: all the EU member states have essentially the same percent of their population vaccinated. Solidarność! They are also actually doing quite well internationally, with only the US/UK and Israel significantly better (and some Gulf states).
And of course the US/UK achieved this by not playing fair. Trump tried to buy Biontech outright, and you can bet he would have denied Germany access to the vaccine developed in Germany had he succeeded. Oxford wanted to partner with Merck, but the UK government forbade this and forced them to go with Astrazeneca instead, exactly because they could then foist UK-first contracts on them.
Coming back to the EU procurement process: there simply was no precedent for this, no EU jurisdiction, no EU body that regularly does this, and thus no expertise. Thus the contracts :-/
"The EU took a step back" is incorrect, as there simply wasn't and isn't a role for the EU here at all, even the procurement wasn't really an EU thing.
See also:
https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1372897635577761803?s...
The procurement, and the procurement alone, was something the member states decided ad-hoc to pool in this particular instance, in order to avoid exactly the kind of situation between member states that we currently have with the UK.
And that has actually worked remarkably well: all the EU member states have essentially the same percent of their population vaccinated. Solidarność! They are also actually doing quite well internationally, with only the US/UK and Israel significantly better (and some Gulf states).
And of course the US/UK achieved this by not playing fair. Trump tried to buy Biontech outright, and you can bet he would have denied Germany access to the vaccine developed in Germany had he succeeded. Oxford wanted to partner with Merck, but the UK government forbade this and forced them to go with Astrazeneca instead, exactly because they could then foist UK-first contracts on them.
Coming back to the EU procurement process: there simply was no precedent for this, no EU jurisdiction, no EU body that regularly does this, and thus no expertise. Thus the contracts :-/
"The EU took a step back" is incorrect, as there simply wasn't and isn't a role for the EU here at all, even the procurement wasn't really an EU thing.
See also:
https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1372897635577761803?s...
Because around half the EU production is exported whereas until a few days ago exactly 0% of the US and UK production were.
"Until a few days ago" because the US just recently agreed to send some vaccine to Canada. For the first time. Canada had been getting vaccine produced in the EU. UK is still at 0.
"Until a few days ago" because the US just recently agreed to send some vaccine to Canada. For the first time. Canada had been getting vaccine produced in the EU. UK is still at 0.
Right about USA. Wrong about UK.
USA has effectively banned export. UK signed a better deal (https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...), three months earlier, and as a result all AZ vaccine produced domestically in the UK is going to UK Citizens, and they are higher up the queue for AZ product manufactured in the EU. This produces the same effect as an export ban (i.e. domestic production used entirely by country), but is really just the result of competent procurement.
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_...
EU shat the bed by penny pinching. Don't paint incompetence as "humanitarian efforts"
USA has effectively banned export. UK signed a better deal (https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...), three months earlier, and as a result all AZ vaccine produced domestically in the UK is going to UK Citizens, and they are higher up the queue for AZ product manufactured in the EU. This produces the same effect as an export ban (i.e. domestic production used entirely by country), but is really just the result of competent procurement.
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_...
EU shat the bed by penny pinching. Don't paint incompetence as "humanitarian efforts"
The EU shat the bed by not banning all exports just like the US did. It's insane to me that the EU allowed 41 million vaccine doses produced INSIDE the EU to be exported to other countries while Europeans are dying and in lockdown.
It would be insane to hold this necessary vaccine back from the world just to serve egoistic purposes. Just because the EU has good production infrastructure should not make them the “winner“ in some world wide “vaxing race“
> by not banning all exports just like the US did
and of course the UK did as well, as the previous poster kindly pointed out:
> This produces the same effect as an export ban
How exactly you achieve being an egotistical sociopath seems a secondary concern.
Now of course both the US and the UK were in extremely dire straits at the tine, with by far the worst outcomes. So I guess that behavior is at least somewhat understandable when you have your back against the wall. Doesn't really make it any better, though.
and of course the UK did as well, as the previous poster kindly pointed out:
> This produces the same effect as an export ban
How exactly you achieve being an egotistical sociopath seems a secondary concern.
Now of course both the US and the UK were in extremely dire straits at the tine, with by far the worst outcomes. So I guess that behavior is at least somewhat understandable when you have your back against the wall. Doesn't really make it any better, though.
All of the mentioned actors are egotistical sociopaths in your example, as the EU is not talking about equitable access, only access for its own citizens.
If you care about equitable access you should be praising the UK, and in particular Oxford, for making its vaccine available at cost, and for having dedicated supply chains already established for poorer nations.
There's still plenty to criticise, but the current framing demonstrates the egocentrism of all of the actors.
If you care about equitable access you should be praising the UK, and in particular Oxford, for making its vaccine available at cost, and for having dedicated supply chains already established for poorer nations.
There's still plenty to criticise, but the current framing demonstrates the egocentrism of all of the actors.
Hmm...the EU has exported 50% of its vaccine production.
The UK: 0%
The US: 0% until a few days ago.
The UK: 0%
The US: 0% until a few days ago.
This is a very narrow view. The U.K. has made sure there are international supply chains to distribute the Oxford vaccine, and far more of that is being supplied internationally than the entirety of doses exported from the EU.
I think your 50% figure is also too high, though it is a high proportion, but these doses are primarily going to wealthy countries.
If the EU were asking for U.K. doses to be routed to other (particularly poorer) countries I would be sympathetic to the position, but this spat is about getting the EU doses, not about equitable access.
I think your 50% figure is also too high, though it is a high proportion, but these doses are primarily going to wealthy countries.
If the EU were asking for U.K. doses to be routed to other (particularly poorer) countries I would be sympathetic to the position, but this spat is about getting the EU doses, not about equitable access.
And ordered 100% more than needed for the EU in order to supply other nations with that. The UK did the same so.
Is a government securing vaccines for their population "egotistic and sociopathic"
What makes this so painful for me is that person responsible, the comission president von der Leyen, was not actually elected by the people.
We need some massive reforms and rebuilding after this. There already was a lot of EU scepticism, and instead of taking this opportunity to shine, they completely squandered it and destroyed trust.
We need some massive reforms and rebuilding after this. There already was a lot of EU scepticism, and instead of taking this opportunity to shine, they completely squandered it and destroyed trust.
> What makes this so painful for me is that person responsible, the comission president von der Leyen, was not actually elected by the people.
Forgive me for picking on this, but I see it regularly come up whenever the deficit of democracy in the EU is discussed and I completely disagree with that assessment.
The President of the US is not elected by "the people". The PMs of most countries are invited to form a government by the head of state, not directly by the people. This is a common feature in many democracies, executive roles are not directly elected and are instead picked based on support by parliamentary majorities. The President of the European Commission is elected by the Parliament, which is itself elected directly by the people of the EU. I see absolutely no problem there.
There are other things which deserve more attention, like the disproportionate amount of power the Council has vis a vis the Commission and the Parliament.
Forgive me for picking on this, but I see it regularly come up whenever the deficit of democracy in the EU is discussed and I completely disagree with that assessment.
The President of the US is not elected by "the people". The PMs of most countries are invited to form a government by the head of state, not directly by the people. This is a common feature in many democracies, executive roles are not directly elected and are instead picked based on support by parliamentary majorities. The President of the European Commission is elected by the Parliament, which is itself elected directly by the people of the EU. I see absolutely no problem there.
There are other things which deserve more attention, like the disproportionate amount of power the Council has vis a vis the Commission and the Parliament.
Thanks for being the 1000 person to explain this to me.
They promised before the election that the candidate of the strongest party would get the job.
The whole plan was to strengthen the parliament, and the whole promise was broken after the election, _because_ the council wanted to make sure the parliament and commission are kept weak.
Whenever I have this discussion people for some reasons assume I don't know even the most basic mechanics of the system I critize.
And the same people always conveniently forget what we were promised during the election campaign. All parties agreed to make the candidate of the strongest party after the election the commission president. They all promised that.
Von der Leyen is the council and national governments taking a dump on the parliament. And it didn stop there! During the backroom deals that lead to this, the parliament negotiated that they will only play along if they finally get more power.
Fast forward a couple of months and they got stiffed and insulted again. The brexit deal i.e. was an affront to parliament, because they didn't even get to vote it on it. The vaccine deals were kept secret from them. And on and on and on.
The only directly elected body in the EU is constantly being disrespected.
You act like these are separate problems, but the fact that we got von der Leyen, who didn't even run in the election, IS THE SAME thing as the problem of Power of council vs. Commission vs. Parliament. The later caused the former.
(Sorry for the tone, I got angry, but not at you. Please read it in mickey mouse voice to take the edge off.)
They promised before the election that the candidate of the strongest party would get the job.
The whole plan was to strengthen the parliament, and the whole promise was broken after the election, _because_ the council wanted to make sure the parliament and commission are kept weak.
Whenever I have this discussion people for some reasons assume I don't know even the most basic mechanics of the system I critize.
And the same people always conveniently forget what we were promised during the election campaign. All parties agreed to make the candidate of the strongest party after the election the commission president. They all promised that.
Von der Leyen is the council and national governments taking a dump on the parliament. And it didn stop there! During the backroom deals that lead to this, the parliament negotiated that they will only play along if they finally get more power.
Fast forward a couple of months and they got stiffed and insulted again. The brexit deal i.e. was an affront to parliament, because they didn't even get to vote it on it. The vaccine deals were kept secret from them. And on and on and on.
The only directly elected body in the EU is constantly being disrespected.
You act like these are separate problems, but the fact that we got von der Leyen, who didn't even run in the election, IS THE SAME thing as the problem of Power of council vs. Commission vs. Parliament. The later caused the former.
(Sorry for the tone, I got angry, but not at you. Please read it in mickey mouse voice to take the edge off.)
I think your perspective is fair.
Personally, I think that the Commission should be directly elected by the Parliament from it's members, which would make it much more similar to the national governments.
I'm not sure the Council (i.e. the member states) would agree to that though.
At least since Lisbon, the EP has some (not enough) power over Commissioners.
Personally, I think that the Commission should be directly elected by the Parliament from it's members, which would make it much more similar to the national governments.
I'm not sure the Council (i.e. the member states) would agree to that though.
At least since Lisbon, the EP has some (not enough) power over Commissioners.
I agree. This would also mean there have to be coalition negotiations. It would drastically increase the public debate across Europe and give people more stake in what is going on.
This is not by some accident of history. It is a deliberate decision of euro-skeptic countries to avoid turning the EU into a superstate. It is usually the same countries who then go to complain about the "democratic deficit" of the EU institutions. I went through the Brexit referendum debates and the hypocrisy was rank.
Exactly. This is one the first things we have to fix. The relationship between the nations government and the EU is in parts absurd.
What’s absurd about it?
I.e. national governments using EU to pass legislation, which they then oppose locally, claiming the evil EU is forcing it upon them against their will.
Generally, blaming all bad things on the EU and acting like it's a foreign power whenever it servers their needs, obfuscating the the national governments are the ones with most power over EU decisions.
Generally, blaming all bad things on the EU and acting like it's a foreign power whenever it servers their needs, obfuscating the the national governments are the ones with most power over EU decisions.
The trouble is that none of the parties involved have any incentive to fix this. The national governments certainly don't, because it gives them a convenient way to pass laws they don't like, and the EU doesn't either because it both gives the EU more power and makes national governments beholden to them. For all the talk some populist politicians make about leaving the EU, it's not like they actually would because that would mean giving up their power to pass laws without that inconvenient democratic accountability.
I reckon this was a major reason Brexit went the way it did. Supporters of the EU liked to point to the fact that actually, our government was behind a lot of the unpopular EU actions to argue that Brexit supporters had been tricked into wanting to leave the EU. What they didn't get was how completely unconvincing an argument that is. The politicians who were busy undermining and blocking any attempt to leave the EU also used it as a way to pass laws that the people they represent didn't want, shielding themselves from any kind of accountability to the general populace, and that was meant to make everyone fall in line behind them and want to remain in the EU? Ridiculous.
I reckon this was a major reason Brexit went the way it did. Supporters of the EU liked to point to the fact that actually, our government was behind a lot of the unpopular EU actions to argue that Brexit supporters had been tricked into wanting to leave the EU. What they didn't get was how completely unconvincing an argument that is. The politicians who were busy undermining and blocking any attempt to leave the EU also used it as a way to pass laws that the people they represent didn't want, shielding themselves from any kind of accountability to the general populace, and that was meant to make everyone fall in line behind them and want to remain in the EU? Ridiculous.
Could you clarify what you mean, please? Surely the argument is that some politicians busy undermining the EU and promoting leaving it, or other manoeuvres born out of Eurosceptic populism, also used the EU as a way to shield themselves from responsibility for unpopular laws via passing them "abroad", which they could use to then rally their domestic basic on Eurosceptic grounds, isn't it? You seem to be saying the opposite.
It is possible for the EU to both have a democratic deficit, and for the completely opaque and unaccountable process for choosing the head of the Commission to be a part of that. Bear in mind, the EU Parliament is not a real parliament, so it does not improve things much when the 'spitzenkandidaten' is selected. That's how Juncker happened, a literal alcoholic. EU always ends up with failures at the top, it seems to be an unwritten law.
[deleted]
Commission president was decided by the heads of each democratically elected government - so Merkel, Sanchez, Johnson, Macron etc.
Just like in the UK where the PM is elected by each democratically elected MP
Just like in the UK where the PM is elected by each democratically elected MP
> Just like in the UK where the PM is elected by each democratically elected MP
That's not the case. The PM is appointed by the Monarch, who will almost always choose the leader of the party able to command a majority in the House of Commons. That leader will be chosen according to the rules of their party. Boris Johnson won an election where all eligible members of the Conservative Party had a vote; it is the case that the shortlist of two was decided by MPs.
The PM is also a regular MP and has to be elected by their local constituency voters.
That's not the case. The PM is appointed by the Monarch, who will almost always choose the leader of the party able to command a majority in the House of Commons. That leader will be chosen according to the rules of their party. Boris Johnson won an election where all eligible members of the Conservative Party had a vote; it is the case that the shortlist of two was decided by MPs.
The PM is also a regular MP and has to be elected by their local constituency voters.
Technically of course, however the monarch is "advised" by the previous prime minster, who by convention tells her the person who can command confidence the house, which is the person who will get 50%+1 of the votes.
If we're being technical the PM does not have to be an elected MP, and can be from the house of lords.
If we're being technical the PM does not have to be an elected MP, and can be from the house of lords.
[deleted]
They promised us that the candidate of the strongest party will get the job.
Isn't the EVP the strongest block in the EU parliament right now?
Yes, but the candidate was Weber. Von der Leyen didn't even run for parliament.
It was all a big deuce dropped on the parliament, really. The parliament is the only directly elected body in the EU, and the nations governments hate the idea that it could gain any kind of real power.
It was all a big deuce dropped on the parliament, really. The parliament is the only directly elected body in the EU, and the nations governments hate the idea that it could gain any kind of real power.
Yes, this was a major regressive move compared with 2014 and the spitzenkandidat
The move was caused by the democratically elected heads of government of the member nations (including the UK at that time), not by the commission.
P.S. in the UK the last time someone became PM the morning after winning a majority in a general election was 1997. The time before that was 1979.
Major, Brown, May, Johnson were all selected by their party members
Thatcher, Blair led parties that won an election (although less than 50% of the vote)
Cameron won a plurarity of the seats in parliament but required both Tory and Lib Dem agreement
The idea in the UK of the PM being elected is very rare.
The move was caused by the democratically elected heads of government of the member nations (including the UK at that time), not by the commission.
P.S. in the UK the last time someone became PM the morning after winning a majority in a general election was 1997. The time before that was 1979.
Major, Brown, May, Johnson were all selected by their party members
Thatcher, Blair led parties that won an election (although less than 50% of the vote)
Cameron won a plurarity of the seats in parliament but required both Tory and Lib Dem agreement
The idea in the UK of the PM being elected is very rare.
The German chancellor is elected the same way. There is nothing preventing a candidate change after the election, plus there is no way to tell which coalition will actually form. And still almost nobody would argue that the German federal government isn't democratically legitimized.
I mean why do all of you just keep ignoring what I'm saying?
We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would get the job!
All parties in the election agreed to that. We had debates between the candidates rooted on that promise. The whole election was based on that.
The EU has serious problems with democratic legitimacy, it has serious problems with Trust, and yet people defend those moves because they are technically legal.
The voters were told one thing and they got another thing.
And then the EU does an about-face and wonders why there is so many people distrusting it.
Do you want the EU to succeed or not? If you want it to succeed, like I do, we have to call out the issues and fix them, instead of defending broken things because we still believe in the whole.
The EU will never reach its potential if we don't mature it's political system and give the people some direct, visible control.
We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would get the job!
All parties in the election agreed to that. We had debates between the candidates rooted on that promise. The whole election was based on that.
The EU has serious problems with democratic legitimacy, it has serious problems with Trust, and yet people defend those moves because they are technically legal.
The voters were told one thing and they got another thing.
And then the EU does an about-face and wonders why there is so many people distrusting it.
Do you want the EU to succeed or not? If you want it to succeed, like I do, we have to call out the issues and fix them, instead of defending broken things because we still believe in the whole.
The EU will never reach its potential if we don't mature it's political system and give the people some direct, visible control.
For me the biggest deal breaker is that the laws come out of nowhere. Suddenly there is policy, then vote and then implementation. If you don't like the proposed laws you cannot vote down people who proposed it. Then when it comes to vote of parliament is often too late. Most MEP don't even know what they vote anyway (watch any session, it's eye opening). I don't know how anyone can stand for it and defend it.
In US Congress you can only vote down the member from your district. In the EU, your vote impacts the selection of MEPS not just for one small district, but for an entire country’s worth of MEPs. So your vote does matter and you can vote down the party you disagree with. You just don’t seem to understand how it works. Watch any parliament at work and it’s just as eye opening.
> In US Congress you can only vote down the member from your district.
In the US Congress you can vote for, or against, both your district’s representative in the House and your entire state’s representatives in the Senate.
But, more important, the EP, while it is involved in some legislation, doesn't have the preeminent lawmaking power that you'd expect of a parliament; the European Commission has legislative initiative, and their legislation must be confirmed by the European Council and in some cases the European Parliament.
So, great, the electoral system for the EP is arguably more effectively representative than that for the IS Congress, but that would matter a lot more if the EP had the legislative role of the US Congress or a normal parliament.
In the US Congress you can vote for, or against, both your district’s representative in the House and your entire state’s representatives in the Senate.
But, more important, the EP, while it is involved in some legislation, doesn't have the preeminent lawmaking power that you'd expect of a parliament; the European Commission has legislative initiative, and their legislation must be confirmed by the European Council and in some cases the European Parliament.
So, great, the electoral system for the EP is arguably more effectively representative than that for the IS Congress, but that would matter a lot more if the EP had the legislative role of the US Congress or a normal parliament.
> In the EU, your vote impacts the selection of MEPS not just for one small district, but for an entire country’s worth of MEPs.
With the result that candidates aren't accountable to voters, only to party bureaucracy, since their chances of reelection depend much more on where they are on the party list than on how many voters approved of their voting.
Not to mention that MEPs don't get to write the laws - the laws are written by the unelected commision.
With the result that candidates aren't accountable to voters, only to party bureaucracy, since their chances of reelection depend much more on where they are on the party list than on how many voters approved of their voting.
Not to mention that MEPs don't get to write the laws - the laws are written by the unelected commision.
> In the EU, your vote impacts the selection of MEPS not just for one small district, but for an entire country’s worth of MEPs
Depends on the country. Germany sure, it's a single bucket. Ireland and Belgium are split in 3, Italy in 5, Poland in 13
The laws themselves are proposed by appointees of the national governments, same as domestic laws.
Depends on the country. Germany sure, it's a single bucket. Ireland and Belgium are split in 3, Italy in 5, Poland in 13
The laws themselves are proposed by appointees of the national governments, same as domestic laws.
The president could prevent that though and could ask for a re-election in case of a candidate change after the election. So not nothing ;)
Almost no one would argue that because AFAIK that never happened. Pretty sure people would argue that way as soon as this happens.
Almost no one would argue that because AFAIK that never happened. Pretty sure people would argue that way as soon as this happens.
yawn.. why do you brexiteers even care about EU anymore?
The European Commission isn't directly elected by citizens in the EU but the President of the Commission needs to be approved by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who are elected by voters from member states. MEPs also vote on whether to approve Commissioners who are nominated by governments of member states. In no country citizens directly elect the government. EU commission EU's government. The commission president is equivalent with a PM
I'm Austrian and pro EU.
We were promised that the candidate of the strongest party in the parliament election will get the job.
Every time this comes up people explain to me again what I already know, and never ever they seem to remember what the people were promised before the election.
We were promised that the candidate of the strongest party in the parliament election will get the job.
Every time this comes up people explain to me again what I already know, and never ever they seem to remember what the people were promised before the election.
That system was propagated by the two “Spitzenkandidaten” themselves. It’s not a law nor did the national governments sign up for it.
So yes, it was a bit of deception, created as part of of a fight between institutions. Just about nobody decided their vote based on these candidates, anyway.
So yes, it was a bit of deception, created as part of of a fight between institutions. Just about nobody decided their vote based on these candidates, anyway.
If nothing that is being promised during an election actually matters, we really don't have to keep pretending like this is a democracy.
Boris Johnson wasn’t elected directly (as prime minister), either. Nor Merkel. Or, for that matter, Biden.
The simple reform is to not have EU handle vaccine procurement anymore.
I'm sure that would work out fine for the wealthy EU countries. Though the small countries might not have the same leverage.
But in the long run, wouldn't it be bad for all of us, if it takes eastern European countries a lot longer to reopen?
But in the long run, wouldn't it be bad for all of us, if it takes eastern European countries a lot longer to reopen?
This whole topic is about how the EU screwed up the whole thing.
It would be hard for individual countries to do any worse.
Tiny Israel did vastly better that the EU, so the size of the EU clearly didn't help.
It would be hard for individual countries to do any worse.
Tiny Israel did vastly better that the EU, so the size of the EU clearly didn't help.
> It would be hard for individual countries to do any worse.
It would be pretty easy for any individual countries that don't actually produce vaccines to do worse.
Just look at Canada, for instance. It's a rich country that hoarded vaccine pre-orders (Enough to vaccinate its population three times over), and what was the result? A lower vaccination rate than the EU. That's because Canada does not control any part of the R&D or manufacturing process, so its orders got pushed to the back of the line. And neither do most of the countries in the EU.
What makes you think Slovakia or Greece, or Italy are going to be any better off? What makes you think that if vaccine procurement were up to each individual country, that any of those countries would see a single dose before, say, Belgium reached 100% vaccination?
It would be pretty easy for any individual countries that don't actually produce vaccines to do worse.
Just look at Canada, for instance. It's a rich country that hoarded vaccine pre-orders (Enough to vaccinate its population three times over), and what was the result? A lower vaccination rate than the EU. That's because Canada does not control any part of the R&D or manufacturing process, so its orders got pushed to the back of the line. And neither do most of the countries in the EU.
What makes you think Slovakia or Greece, or Italy are going to be any better off? What makes you think that if vaccine procurement were up to each individual country, that any of those countries would see a single dose before, say, Belgium reached 100% vaccination?
The answer is in the post you comment: Israel did it.
By having the best distribution system in the world, and by leveraging that into a promise to gather data on vaccine efficacy before anyone else can.
This trick only works for one small wealthy country. Nobody cares so much about the second fastest set of vaccination health data that they will prioritize shipments to your country. Slovakia and Greece would still be shit out of luck.
It's like pointing at a lottery winner, and saying - 'look, this is the strategy you all should be emulating to get out of poverty.' The problem is, there is only one winner, and there is only one guinea pig of a country that will commit itself to being a case study for a fast, full rollout, as long as it gets priority on vaccines.
Also, Israel's impressive vaccination statistics conveniently ignore its Palestinian population, which is not getting those doses.
This trick only works for one small wealthy country. Nobody cares so much about the second fastest set of vaccination health data that they will prioritize shipments to your country. Slovakia and Greece would still be shit out of luck.
It's like pointing at a lottery winner, and saying - 'look, this is the strategy you all should be emulating to get out of poverty.' The problem is, there is only one winner, and there is only one guinea pig of a country that will commit itself to being a case study for a fast, full rollout, as long as it gets priority on vaccines.
Also, Israel's impressive vaccination statistics conveniently ignore its Palestinian population, which is not getting those doses.
It sounds like the EU needs deconstruction not more construction. Go back to a free trade zone, not a super government.
I would love for the EU to even give glimpses of a super government; what I see is fractal bureaucracy. Every crysis that seems to come up, it's a show of people in suits, negociating and coming up with plans and commisions and big worded manifests, and coming up with solutions sometimes decades after the initial spark.
I come from Central Eastern Europe i.e. the poor people of the great EU. Our government is incompetent, corrupt, all the stereotypical attributes, and somehow, the most incompetent, lazy and corrupt end up Europoliticians (note: this is not a rule, there are exceptions). It's almost like a status symbol of when you beat the system; you get a nice cozy place where you do nothing. I am highly skeptical that we are alone in this.
Then, from a ground level, as someone that wants to love the European Union and can see the great economic benefits it brought us since joining, I can't help but stare in awe as all the brain gets drained from my country. Every single capable person has to decide whether they want to stay here and basically fight for scraps or go to the west where they get money they couldn't dream of here.
Sorry for the rant, your mention of a super government made me irrationaly angry at something I can't have, or don't want in its current form, and your deconstruction point is very much aligned with what I think needs to happen' currently.
I come from Central Eastern Europe i.e. the poor people of the great EU. Our government is incompetent, corrupt, all the stereotypical attributes, and somehow, the most incompetent, lazy and corrupt end up Europoliticians (note: this is not a rule, there are exceptions). It's almost like a status symbol of when you beat the system; you get a nice cozy place where you do nothing. I am highly skeptical that we are alone in this.
Then, from a ground level, as someone that wants to love the European Union and can see the great economic benefits it brought us since joining, I can't help but stare in awe as all the brain gets drained from my country. Every single capable person has to decide whether they want to stay here and basically fight for scraps or go to the west where they get money they couldn't dream of here.
Sorry for the rant, your mention of a super government made me irrationaly angry at something I can't have, or don't want in its current form, and your deconstruction point is very much aligned with what I think needs to happen' currently.
Visa and borders won't stop capable people from migrating out of the country that you are amusingly planning to fix by isolation. It didn't before you joined the bloc, it won't after you "deconstruct the EU" — and you know it well.
As long as you have precisely pinpointed the issue with supplying EP with incompetent MEPs (a common problem among most members of the bloc today, arguably including the appointment of Ursula von der Leyen), you've resorted to a completely destructive resolution of deconstructing the EU. As a punishment for the failures of your homeland, I suppose? "Bad EU did it, not our fault" is such a common trope among local politicians (hallo Österreich[1] from the latest news) and some citizens.
The solution is in fixing your domestic politics, not dragging your capable citizens and fellow European neighbors down. It's solely thanks to the European Union's common approach[2] that the small/poor members of the bloc have truly equal access to vaccines. Otherwise small countries would have never been able to outbid rich Germany, France, UK, Netherlands and other power states on the free market. As you understand, there are no benefits for Germany, France et al. in this collective decision, they're literally paying with the lives of their citizens for the idea of the EU. A little gratitude.
By being in the same boat, we will together overcome pandemic, poverty and political incompetence. You're free to disagree, just don't pretend that your local brexit will go swimmingly — it isn't rosy even for such a developed country as the UK.
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/austria-seeks-to-pin-blame-o...
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/commissions-centralis...
As long as you have precisely pinpointed the issue with supplying EP with incompetent MEPs (a common problem among most members of the bloc today, arguably including the appointment of Ursula von der Leyen), you've resorted to a completely destructive resolution of deconstructing the EU. As a punishment for the failures of your homeland, I suppose? "Bad EU did it, not our fault" is such a common trope among local politicians (hallo Österreich[1] from the latest news) and some citizens.
The solution is in fixing your domestic politics, not dragging your capable citizens and fellow European neighbors down. It's solely thanks to the European Union's common approach[2] that the small/poor members of the bloc have truly equal access to vaccines. Otherwise small countries would have never been able to outbid rich Germany, France, UK, Netherlands and other power states on the free market. As you understand, there are no benefits for Germany, France et al. in this collective decision, they're literally paying with the lives of their citizens for the idea of the EU. A little gratitude.
By being in the same boat, we will together overcome pandemic, poverty and political incompetence. You're free to disagree, just don't pretend that your local brexit will go swimmingly — it isn't rosy even for such a developed country as the UK.
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/austria-seeks-to-pin-blame-o...
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/commissions-centralis...
>A little gratitude
Oh please, rich EU countries haven't accepted the eastern block countries in the EU out of charity, they did it because it benefited them massively.
Big French and German businesses could now export their products to millions more people without tariffs and relocate production there lowering the cost and making insane profits.
Danish, French, Dutch and Austrian banks took over the banking business in the eastern block offering the citizens there much higher fees and interests than they would in their home countries, again, making massive profits which got funneled back "home".
IKEA, German and Austrian furniture and logging companies are heavily involved in illegal deforestation in Romania via bribes and corruption.
Austrian construction companies are often involved in corruption scandals for shitty and massively overpriced infrastructure projects in the Eastern Block, some with EU money even.
And not to mention the workforce and 'brain drain' that moved to the west benefiting the businesses, both white collar and especially agriculture, and also the landlords there on a huge scale.
The EU expansion has been a massive wealth transfer project of taxpayer money from rich countries to the big businesses and asset owners of the same rich countries, funneled through the newer poorer members in form of various EU projects. And of course the poorer members then get the blame by the populist politicians in the richer countries because they're "stealing your tax Euros and your jobs" even though their policies directly enabled and supported this wealth and job transfer in the first place as it benefited the big and well connected businesses in their countries.
Oh please, rich EU countries haven't accepted the eastern block countries in the EU out of charity, they did it because it benefited them massively.
Big French and German businesses could now export their products to millions more people without tariffs and relocate production there lowering the cost and making insane profits.
Danish, French, Dutch and Austrian banks took over the banking business in the eastern block offering the citizens there much higher fees and interests than they would in their home countries, again, making massive profits which got funneled back "home".
IKEA, German and Austrian furniture and logging companies are heavily involved in illegal deforestation in Romania via bribes and corruption.
Austrian construction companies are often involved in corruption scandals for shitty and massively overpriced infrastructure projects in the Eastern Block, some with EU money even.
And not to mention the workforce and 'brain drain' that moved to the west benefiting the businesses, both white collar and especially agriculture, and also the landlords there on a huge scale.
The EU expansion has been a massive wealth transfer project of taxpayer money from rich countries to the big businesses and asset owners of the same rich countries, funneled through the newer poorer members in form of various EU projects. And of course the poorer members then get the blame by the populist politicians in the richer countries because they're "stealing your tax Euros and your jobs" even though their policies directly enabled and supported this wealth and job transfer in the first place as it benefited the big and well connected businesses in their countries.
> Oh please, rich EU countries haven't accepted the eastern block countries in the EU out of charity, they did it because it benefited them massively.
Oh, you know perfectly well which paragraph you pulled this sentence from. Nothing will sell the idea of exchanging tens of thousands of lives for some kind of commercial benefits for some large companies to the citizens of advanced European countries, if the citizens themselves didn't believe in the European Union. It just doesn't work like that in Europe.
> Big French and German businesses could now export their products to millions more people without tariffs and relocate production there lowering the cost and making insane profits.
Yeah, these pesky businesses optimize costs and seek profits, who would have thought. They do it while developing the industry and create a pool of high-grade (Germany and Western Europe is known for quality goods) specialists in regions where such competencies have often never existed. It's all obvious, the same thing is repeated again and again. You know who else benefits? Competitive companies from the poorer/newer members of the bloc, which now have a massive open market to compete due to the lower OpEx/labor costs, and essentially pushing stagnant players out of their home markets. E.g. my customers are a small factory supplying manufactured goods and high quality services all over the EU, especially Sweden, Germany and Switzerland—for a much lower price. My company is able to provide SWE solutions for companies in France and Finland just like to local businesses. Some of my partners run a 3-employees SWE consulting company from home offices in Estonia, providing services for a particular Spanish fintech enterprise as if it were across the street. It wouldn't be possible without the EU, the market is truly open and transparent without red taping.
> Austrian construction companies are often involved in corruption scandals for shitty and massively overpriced infrastructure projects in the Eastern Block, some with EU money even.
I don't get it, this is just ridiculous. You do realize that corrupt governments and institutions are exploited by foreign forces all the time, it doesn't have to be European? China[1][2] and Russia[3] are heavily involved in such activities, both are outside the EU. What's your point? It's not EU's fault that some Eastern politicians/institutions are corrupt, but this is its prospect problem and responsibility[4], I'd agree with that.
> The EU expansion has been a massive wealth transfer project of taxpayer money from rich countries to the bg businesses and asset owners of the same rich countries, funneled through the newer poorer members in form of various EU projects.
These allegations run counter to the economic growth charts of almost all countries that have joined the European Union. This definitely contradicts the economic situation in Estonia (again, Eastern Europe); also below is a reply by an Irish citizen, country which got richer after joining the bloc.
You're clearly reaching the anti-EU narrative with your exploitation/corruption claims, and you do it quite lazily. As I said, start by putting things in order in your home country, and then threaten or moan at the "oppressive" European Union. If you don’t change your mind by then.
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/18681026209631...
[2] https://www.amo.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/AMO_central-eu... (PDF)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Laundromat
[4] https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/Report/... (PDF)
Oh, you know perfectly well which paragraph you pulled this sentence from. Nothing will sell the idea of exchanging tens of thousands of lives for some kind of commercial benefits for some large companies to the citizens of advanced European countries, if the citizens themselves didn't believe in the European Union. It just doesn't work like that in Europe.
> Big French and German businesses could now export their products to millions more people without tariffs and relocate production there lowering the cost and making insane profits.
Yeah, these pesky businesses optimize costs and seek profits, who would have thought. They do it while developing the industry and create a pool of high-grade (Germany and Western Europe is known for quality goods) specialists in regions where such competencies have often never existed. It's all obvious, the same thing is repeated again and again. You know who else benefits? Competitive companies from the poorer/newer members of the bloc, which now have a massive open market to compete due to the lower OpEx/labor costs, and essentially pushing stagnant players out of their home markets. E.g. my customers are a small factory supplying manufactured goods and high quality services all over the EU, especially Sweden, Germany and Switzerland—for a much lower price. My company is able to provide SWE solutions for companies in France and Finland just like to local businesses. Some of my partners run a 3-employees SWE consulting company from home offices in Estonia, providing services for a particular Spanish fintech enterprise as if it were across the street. It wouldn't be possible without the EU, the market is truly open and transparent without red taping.
> Austrian construction companies are often involved in corruption scandals for shitty and massively overpriced infrastructure projects in the Eastern Block, some with EU money even.
I don't get it, this is just ridiculous. You do realize that corrupt governments and institutions are exploited by foreign forces all the time, it doesn't have to be European? China[1][2] and Russia[3] are heavily involved in such activities, both are outside the EU. What's your point? It's not EU's fault that some Eastern politicians/institutions are corrupt, but this is its prospect problem and responsibility[4], I'd agree with that.
> The EU expansion has been a massive wealth transfer project of taxpayer money from rich countries to the bg businesses and asset owners of the same rich countries, funneled through the newer poorer members in form of various EU projects.
These allegations run counter to the economic growth charts of almost all countries that have joined the European Union. This definitely contradicts the economic situation in Estonia (again, Eastern Europe); also below is a reply by an Irish citizen, country which got richer after joining the bloc.
You're clearly reaching the anti-EU narrative with your exploitation/corruption claims, and you do it quite lazily. As I said, start by putting things in order in your home country, and then threaten or moan at the "oppressive" European Union. If you don’t change your mind by then.
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/18681026209631...
[2] https://www.amo.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/AMO_central-eu... (PDF)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Laundromat
[4] https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/Report/... (PDF)
> The solution is in fixing your domestic politics
This logic is akin to forcibly beating someone with their own hand and asking "why do you beat yourself". When the best people leave then it's blindingly obvious they aren't available to fix domestic politics, isn't it?
And as eastern europe does not have colonial past, there isn't large pool of brains that know local language and can be drained from third world to replace people who left.
I think it's in interest of whole EU that best people stay in their countries. Instead of just sending money via cohesion funds, it should think about creating local opportunities for them.
This logic is akin to forcibly beating someone with their own hand and asking "why do you beat yourself". When the best people leave then it's blindingly obvious they aren't available to fix domestic politics, isn't it?
And as eastern europe does not have colonial past, there isn't large pool of brains that know local language and can be drained from third world to replace people who left.
I think it's in interest of whole EU that best people stay in their countries. Instead of just sending money via cohesion funds, it should think about creating local opportunities for them.
I dunno man, it can work. I'm from Ireland and back when we were a poor country, everyone left for the UK, US or Australia. Mind you, that was true before we joined the EU.
However, because of the EU, we were able to get a lot richer, and now people actually come to Ireland for work (which still blows my mind, even though it's normal now).
However, because of the EU, we were able to get a lot richer, and now people actually come to Ireland for work (which still blows my mind, even though it's normal now).
> This logic is akin to forcibly beating someone with their own hand and asking "why do you beat yourself". When the best people leave then it's blindingly obvious they aren't available to fix domestic politics, isn't it?
I type this reply from my home office in Estonia, Northeastern Europe. I did witness massive brain drain before 2003 when Estonia joined the EU, and I have many (some are exceptionally well educated) friends who left the country afterwards. Just recently a very well educated young neurosurgeon I know made the decision to leave for pursuing the postgrad in Canada and then Switzerland, both countries outside the EU (oh snap, "bad EU" is not guilty this time). Should I blame Canada for a local provincial academic/research landscape? How can I punish them, maybe cheer for some of their trade block to collapse? Pathetic.
I'd rather double-think about my domestic electoral preferences and what can I personally do to transform my country so that more people (many already do) would consider returning. I don't follow who's forcibly beating Eastern European countries with their hands and how exactly: people move all the time in all directions for better opportunities. That's how it is, people move from Finland to Sweden, from Sweden to Norway, from Norway to Germany, etc. It's fine. It provides a much larger landscape of opportunities for different population slices. The EU has made this movement much easier, but Estonians supplied Finland with labor well before joining the EU. Today Russia/Ukraine/Belarus does the same to us, if you're entrepreneurial enough to take advantage of it.
At the same time, English is the main working language in a massive number of local technology companies[1], incl. Pipedrive, Transferwise, Starship Technologies, foreign offices of Twilio, Skype, etc. You meet well educated people from all over the EU (a lot of Spaniards, Portuguese, Swedes) and outer world (from Russia to Brazil) in the foyers of these offices. For some reason they reach Estonia with mediocre salaries by DE/SE/NL and even FI standards. Apparently, you being a tiny Eastern European country, still able to compete for talented brains, if you actually make efforts. So do efforts, don't look whom to blame.
> And as eastern europe does not have colonial past, there isn't large pool of brains that know local language and can be drained from third world to replace people who left.
LOL so what? The most ridiculous excuse I've heard. You don't have colonial past, but you have a pretty huge open bloc of well educated people all over the EU. Compete for them! And yes, this may require adjusting language and cultural requirements, just as Amsterdam is a booming international hub and pretty much an English speaking city today[2][3]. People don't learn German, Dutch, Finnish and Swedish overnight, and it's more often not really required.
> I think it's in interest of whole EU that best people stay in their countries. Instead of just sending money via cohesion funds, it should think about creating local opportunities for them.
No doubts in that, fully agreed. But it's not EU's obligation to supply your country with profitable enterprises and (say) Polish-speaking citizens. You have to make efforts to achieve this, not seeking to destroy the union for everyone else, because you couldn't.
[1] https://e-estonia.com/estonia-is-ranked-the-third-in-europe-...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-netherlands-fo...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-16/amster...
I type this reply from my home office in Estonia, Northeastern Europe. I did witness massive brain drain before 2003 when Estonia joined the EU, and I have many (some are exceptionally well educated) friends who left the country afterwards. Just recently a very well educated young neurosurgeon I know made the decision to leave for pursuing the postgrad in Canada and then Switzerland, both countries outside the EU (oh snap, "bad EU" is not guilty this time). Should I blame Canada for a local provincial academic/research landscape? How can I punish them, maybe cheer for some of their trade block to collapse? Pathetic.
I'd rather double-think about my domestic electoral preferences and what can I personally do to transform my country so that more people (many already do) would consider returning. I don't follow who's forcibly beating Eastern European countries with their hands and how exactly: people move all the time in all directions for better opportunities. That's how it is, people move from Finland to Sweden, from Sweden to Norway, from Norway to Germany, etc. It's fine. It provides a much larger landscape of opportunities for different population slices. The EU has made this movement much easier, but Estonians supplied Finland with labor well before joining the EU. Today Russia/Ukraine/Belarus does the same to us, if you're entrepreneurial enough to take advantage of it.
At the same time, English is the main working language in a massive number of local technology companies[1], incl. Pipedrive, Transferwise, Starship Technologies, foreign offices of Twilio, Skype, etc. You meet well educated people from all over the EU (a lot of Spaniards, Portuguese, Swedes) and outer world (from Russia to Brazil) in the foyers of these offices. For some reason they reach Estonia with mediocre salaries by DE/SE/NL and even FI standards. Apparently, you being a tiny Eastern European country, still able to compete for talented brains, if you actually make efforts. So do efforts, don't look whom to blame.
> And as eastern europe does not have colonial past, there isn't large pool of brains that know local language and can be drained from third world to replace people who left.
LOL so what? The most ridiculous excuse I've heard. You don't have colonial past, but you have a pretty huge open bloc of well educated people all over the EU. Compete for them! And yes, this may require adjusting language and cultural requirements, just as Amsterdam is a booming international hub and pretty much an English speaking city today[2][3]. People don't learn German, Dutch, Finnish and Swedish overnight, and it's more often not really required.
> I think it's in interest of whole EU that best people stay in their countries. Instead of just sending money via cohesion funds, it should think about creating local opportunities for them.
No doubts in that, fully agreed. But it's not EU's obligation to supply your country with profitable enterprises and (say) Polish-speaking citizens. You have to make efforts to achieve this, not seeking to destroy the union for everyone else, because you couldn't.
[1] https://e-estonia.com/estonia-is-ranked-the-third-in-europe-...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-netherlands-fo...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-16/amster...
I did not say anything about blaming/punishment of people who want to improve their life by moving to another country. Where that notion even comes from, please? Of course it is fine, I only ask about mitigating the consequences.
I so wish I could improve matters by choosing in elections...except parties/candidates I vote for regularly end up outside of government, if not completely outside of the parliament. How then can we attract competent people when we always end up with incompetent/corrupt politicans? Everyone who makes the effort in this environment, ends up burned out.
And don't let me even start about adjusting the cultural norms of general population :(
I so wish I could improve matters by choosing in elections...except parties/candidates I vote for regularly end up outside of government, if not completely outside of the parliament. How then can we attract competent people when we always end up with incompetent/corrupt politicans? Everyone who makes the effort in this environment, ends up burned out.
And don't let me even start about adjusting the cultural norms of general population :(
You make a fair point. I choose to engage with some particular pieces:
> Just recently a very well educated young neurosurgeon I know made the decision to leave for pursuing the postgrad in Canada and then Switzerland, both countries outside the EU (oh snap, "bad EU" is not guilty this time).
Well, where I come from, everyone leaves right about now. There is no one to take care of our old people because they make 10x as much elsewhere. There is no one to pick up our berries and our grain, because they get paid so much more doing the same thing in Germany. Romania for example, in Eastern Europe, is the 2nd country after Siria in terms of emigration rate...
Yes, UE is 'guilty' in the sense that other regions are draining the talent because for some reason, talent found no root here. The EU should create ample ground for innovation, whether we are competing internally or globally.
> How can I punish them, maybe cheer for some of their trade block to collapse? Pathetic.
Cheering for some of their trade block to collapse could be something, if it indeed benefited a large segment of the population. I find the word pathetic to be rather insulting, and somehow an indicator of your openness (or lack thereof) to conversation.
> I'd rather double-think about my domestic electoral preferences and what can I personally do to transform my country so that more people (many already do) would consider returning. I don't follow who's forcibly beating Eastern European countries with their hands and how exactly: people move all the time in all directions for better opportunities. That's how it is, people move from Finland to Sweden, from Sweden to Norway, from Norway to Germany, etc. It's fine. It provides a much larger landscape of opportunities for different population slices. The EU has made this movement much easier, but Estonians supplied Finland with labor well before joining the EU. Today Russia/Ukraine/Belarus does the same to us, if you're entrepreneurial enough to take advantage of it.
You treat all emmigration and movement of human capital as a natural consequence. We're talking levels near Syria, where they are in conflict for a decade... This is not the natural, people move in and out. It's people move out. Period. From a member state of the EU. In numbers similar to outside the EU war torn regions.
I am writing this from an enterpreneurial seat. I have businesses, employees and work in tech. I vote with my head. I am politically engaged in my local community and try to make things for the best. I create code camps and internship oportunities for young people. I get involved in state level politics. Your high horse is astounding.
> Apparently, you being a tiny Eastern European country, still able to compete for talented brains, if you actually make efforts. So do efforts, don't look whom to blame.
Efforts without context are just...
> You don't have colonial past, but you have a pretty huge open bloc of well educated people all over the EU. Compete for them!
I'm going to put this up on my wall. "Compete for them!" must be the best advice I've heard for my business in the past years...
> No doubts in that, fully agreed. But it's not EU's obligation to supply your country with profitable enterprises and (say) Polish-speaking citizens. You have to make efforts to achieve this, not seeking to destroy the union for everyone else, because you couldn't.
I can't even begin to understand how getting some things that we complain about handled would be a 'destroying the union for everyone else'. Why would we give up slaves? It would destroy industry for everyone else!
--
All in all, I think your sourced comment is both uninformed and malicious, given from a high horse without any real insights, solutions and or at least, things to build upon.
> Just recently a very well educated young neurosurgeon I know made the decision to leave for pursuing the postgrad in Canada and then Switzerland, both countries outside the EU (oh snap, "bad EU" is not guilty this time).
Well, where I come from, everyone leaves right about now. There is no one to take care of our old people because they make 10x as much elsewhere. There is no one to pick up our berries and our grain, because they get paid so much more doing the same thing in Germany. Romania for example, in Eastern Europe, is the 2nd country after Siria in terms of emigration rate...
Yes, UE is 'guilty' in the sense that other regions are draining the talent because for some reason, talent found no root here. The EU should create ample ground for innovation, whether we are competing internally or globally.
> How can I punish them, maybe cheer for some of their trade block to collapse? Pathetic.
Cheering for some of their trade block to collapse could be something, if it indeed benefited a large segment of the population. I find the word pathetic to be rather insulting, and somehow an indicator of your openness (or lack thereof) to conversation.
> I'd rather double-think about my domestic electoral preferences and what can I personally do to transform my country so that more people (many already do) would consider returning. I don't follow who's forcibly beating Eastern European countries with their hands and how exactly: people move all the time in all directions for better opportunities. That's how it is, people move from Finland to Sweden, from Sweden to Norway, from Norway to Germany, etc. It's fine. It provides a much larger landscape of opportunities for different population slices. The EU has made this movement much easier, but Estonians supplied Finland with labor well before joining the EU. Today Russia/Ukraine/Belarus does the same to us, if you're entrepreneurial enough to take advantage of it.
You treat all emmigration and movement of human capital as a natural consequence. We're talking levels near Syria, where they are in conflict for a decade... This is not the natural, people move in and out. It's people move out. Period. From a member state of the EU. In numbers similar to outside the EU war torn regions.
I am writing this from an enterpreneurial seat. I have businesses, employees and work in tech. I vote with my head. I am politically engaged in my local community and try to make things for the best. I create code camps and internship oportunities for young people. I get involved in state level politics. Your high horse is astounding.
> Apparently, you being a tiny Eastern European country, still able to compete for talented brains, if you actually make efforts. So do efforts, don't look whom to blame.
Efforts without context are just...
> You don't have colonial past, but you have a pretty huge open bloc of well educated people all over the EU. Compete for them!
I'm going to put this up on my wall. "Compete for them!" must be the best advice I've heard for my business in the past years...
> No doubts in that, fully agreed. But it's not EU's obligation to supply your country with profitable enterprises and (say) Polish-speaking citizens. You have to make efforts to achieve this, not seeking to destroy the union for everyone else, because you couldn't.
I can't even begin to understand how getting some things that we complain about handled would be a 'destroying the union for everyone else'. Why would we give up slaves? It would destroy industry for everyone else!
--
All in all, I think your sourced comment is both uninformed and malicious, given from a high horse without any real insights, solutions and or at least, things to build upon.
> It sounds like the EU needs deconstruction not more construction. Go back to a free trade zone, not a super government.
>> your deconstruction point is very much aligned with what I think needs to happen' currently
Let's get some facts straight. By your's "EU needs deconstruction" I read what it is: EU needs to be deconstructed. Like, gone. Or at least seriously crippled in some way. You mention migration as your prime concern, when freedom of movement is one of the fundamental rights of the European Union[1] since Treaty of Rome (1957), a crucial condition of the free trade zone. So I understand this is the part you want to deconstruct first.
Well, I reject this proposition and wholeheartedly find it outrageous, to put it mildly. Initially I wanted to reply that if life in your country is so unbearable within the bloc, then you should probably rather deconstruct yourself from the EU. But I thought it was better to give arguments instead, in case I misunderstood something. Apparently I got you right.
You follow your argument with accusing me of "uninformed and malicious" opinions and "high horse" attitude, but honestly you could try your luck with finding a rapport with a Brit or American, telling them that UK needs to be deconstructed for the common good of some poor, corrupt country. Then, after an honest outrage, you're going to play a victimhood drama with high horse accusations. Amazing hypocrisy.
> All in all, I think your sourced comment is both uninformed and malicious, given from a high horse without any real insights, solutions and or at least, things to build upon.
Please spare your moral assessments of my arguments. It's perfectly fine to be a part of Frugal four[2] within the EU, but you have clearly not yet invested enough in the construction of what you intend to destroy. In my opinion you got accustomed to the non-conflict, diplomatic and lulling attitude of the EU; and enjoy playing drama when facts are presented in the direct manner.
I'm also from the Eastern European country, I run tech business for nearly 15 years. I'm politically active and do read local, European and international press. I also know exactly how people in Ukraine flee country since 2014 (not quite Syria, but two of my high-skilled SWE/SRE friends are refugees from Donbass). We had hell of a lot troubles during 90's in my region, but solution is always the same: fair courts, free elections, competitive entrepreneurship. See that you have absolutely no way to currently influence this? Well, get out of the country. Just spare your flawed life lessons, we have already gone through this, and you still have to.
I don't get why you've decided that the EU owes you "solutions" other than providing you with the same freedoms we all equally have; Balkans war is not EU's fault. Of course we (as EU) could always do better and I sincerely wish prosperity to your nation. But EU freedoms is the "thing to build upon", and it's a damn good start.
The goal of this political and economic union is to help countries develop more easily under the same dome. There's no free lunches. This means that your country has to make own efforts, and there's no way around it. EU won't elect your politicians, won't cure your poverty and corruption, won't jail all your crooks. It's your responsibility, EU is not the La-La-Land. Apparently, you don't understand where you got into and for what reason.
> I'm going to put this up on my wall. "Compete for them!"
Please do! Good competition will lead your businesses and homeland to financial success.[3]
Cheers.
[1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/45-freedom-movem...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frugal_Four
[3] https://mises.org/library/human-action-0
>> your deconstruction point is very much aligned with what I think needs to happen' currently
Let's get some facts straight. By your's "EU needs deconstruction" I read what it is: EU needs to be deconstructed. Like, gone. Or at least seriously crippled in some way. You mention migration as your prime concern, when freedom of movement is one of the fundamental rights of the European Union[1] since Treaty of Rome (1957), a crucial condition of the free trade zone. So I understand this is the part you want to deconstruct first.
Well, I reject this proposition and wholeheartedly find it outrageous, to put it mildly. Initially I wanted to reply that if life in your country is so unbearable within the bloc, then you should probably rather deconstruct yourself from the EU. But I thought it was better to give arguments instead, in case I misunderstood something. Apparently I got you right.
You follow your argument with accusing me of "uninformed and malicious" opinions and "high horse" attitude, but honestly you could try your luck with finding a rapport with a Brit or American, telling them that UK needs to be deconstructed for the common good of some poor, corrupt country. Then, after an honest outrage, you're going to play a victimhood drama with high horse accusations. Amazing hypocrisy.
> All in all, I think your sourced comment is both uninformed and malicious, given from a high horse without any real insights, solutions and or at least, things to build upon.
Please spare your moral assessments of my arguments. It's perfectly fine to be a part of Frugal four[2] within the EU, but you have clearly not yet invested enough in the construction of what you intend to destroy. In my opinion you got accustomed to the non-conflict, diplomatic and lulling attitude of the EU; and enjoy playing drama when facts are presented in the direct manner.
I'm also from the Eastern European country, I run tech business for nearly 15 years. I'm politically active and do read local, European and international press. I also know exactly how people in Ukraine flee country since 2014 (not quite Syria, but two of my high-skilled SWE/SRE friends are refugees from Donbass). We had hell of a lot troubles during 90's in my region, but solution is always the same: fair courts, free elections, competitive entrepreneurship. See that you have absolutely no way to currently influence this? Well, get out of the country. Just spare your flawed life lessons, we have already gone through this, and you still have to.
I don't get why you've decided that the EU owes you "solutions" other than providing you with the same freedoms we all equally have; Balkans war is not EU's fault. Of course we (as EU) could always do better and I sincerely wish prosperity to your nation. But EU freedoms is the "thing to build upon", and it's a damn good start.
The goal of this political and economic union is to help countries develop more easily under the same dome. There's no free lunches. This means that your country has to make own efforts, and there's no way around it. EU won't elect your politicians, won't cure your poverty and corruption, won't jail all your crooks. It's your responsibility, EU is not the La-La-Land. Apparently, you don't understand where you got into and for what reason.
> I'm going to put this up on my wall. "Compete for them!"
Please do! Good competition will lead your businesses and homeland to financial success.[3]
Cheers.
[1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/45-freedom-movem...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frugal_Four
[3] https://mises.org/library/human-action-0
Of course every country should do its best. Noone is contending that.
But there is small, but worrying enough probability that some countries will fail because of this emigration. And then it will be not only their but whole EU's problem. That has nothing to do with victimhood drama or us wanting EU deconstruction or whatever strawman you came up with.
But there is small, but worrying enough probability that some countries will fail because of this emigration. And then it will be not only their but whole EU's problem. That has nothing to do with victimhood drama or us wanting EU deconstruction or whatever strawman you came up with.
> But there is small, but worrying enough probability that some countries will fail because of this emigration. And then it will be not only their but whole EU's problem.
I understand your concerns and generally sympathize with your position. I hope that we won't allow such a development of events, that no country will be squeezed out of talented people and resources. While I personally find this scenario completely unrealistic, I agree that it's important to articulate such concerns, it's an important feedback for EU.
I want to be able to freely roam/live in a safe and highly developed Eastern Europe countries. To enjoy some fancy mineral SPAs in Czech's Karlovy Vary again. To use Romanian high-quality software services, and to buy Bulgarian-produced tasty cuisine in my local Estonian grocery shop. To welcome ground breaking scientific researchers, just as I admire Hungarian scientist Katalin Karikó[1] who pioneered the mRNA research and is now VP in BioNtech. And I mean it, that's the European Union I long for.
> That has nothing to do with victimhood drama or us wanting EU deconstruction or whatever strawman you came up with.
It's not me who came up with blatant "EU needs deconstruction not more construction", take a look a couple replies above which I directly reply to. If not for this outrageous combination of words, I wouldn't even bother commenting in this thread.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karik%C3%B3
I understand your concerns and generally sympathize with your position. I hope that we won't allow such a development of events, that no country will be squeezed out of talented people and resources. While I personally find this scenario completely unrealistic, I agree that it's important to articulate such concerns, it's an important feedback for EU.
I want to be able to freely roam/live in a safe and highly developed Eastern Europe countries. To enjoy some fancy mineral SPAs in Czech's Karlovy Vary again. To use Romanian high-quality software services, and to buy Bulgarian-produced tasty cuisine in my local Estonian grocery shop. To welcome ground breaking scientific researchers, just as I admire Hungarian scientist Katalin Karikó[1] who pioneered the mRNA research and is now VP in BioNtech. And I mean it, that's the European Union I long for.
> That has nothing to do with victimhood drama or us wanting EU deconstruction or whatever strawman you came up with.
It's not me who came up with blatant "EU needs deconstruction not more construction", take a look a couple replies above which I directly reply to. If not for this outrageous combination of words, I wouldn't even bother commenting in this thread.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karik%C3%B3
The idea of a competent super government encompassing 700 million people is a fantasy. Instead, as the EU heads toward more integration you’ll see more of the debilitating infighting that makes the US government so dysfunctional. Once Germany and France start chipping into the common tax base, your politics will become preoccupied with telling Poland it has to have abortion or something similar. When you’re subsidizing someone else you feel entitled to tell them how to live.
The thing most people don't realise is that the EU is almost completely undemocratic, which is pretty crazy when you think about it for a minute.
On the other hand it's also no surprise considering how it evolved: a producer's cartel for the coal and steel, and later agricultural, industries.
It's a miracle it even works so well as it does.
On the other hand it's also no surprise considering how it evolved: a producer's cartel for the coal and steel, and later agricultural, industries.
It's a miracle it even works so well as it does.
The EU actually signed a contract with AstraZeneca on August 27, a day earlier than the UK: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/17/europe/uk-astrazeneca-vac....
Again, this is simply not true. Yes, the UK signed one particular contract on Aug 28, so one day after the EU with AZ. However, the UK had a binding contract with AZ since May.
"However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said."
Quote is from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
"However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said."
Quote is from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
[deleted]
[deleted]
> However, you can also see it as the EU has no real power at all and is just an easy target to get fooled over by other countries..
the position it finds itself in is entirely a result of its inability to competently and promptly negotiate contracts with its suppliers
it was entirely focused on price instead of delivery, and it took months more than the suppliers other customers (e.g. the UK) to agree anything
none of this is surprising behavior for an organisation that is primarily a producer's cartel
the mistake was putting such an organisation in charge of the procurement in the first place
the other outrageous fact is that France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands (the "Inclusive Vaccine Alliance") had all but signed a deal back in June, then the EU commission forced itself into the process, spent three months trying to re-negotiate (for a product being produced at cost), then signed the original deal regardless
the position it finds itself in is entirely a result of its inability to competently and promptly negotiate contracts with its suppliers
it was entirely focused on price instead of delivery, and it took months more than the suppliers other customers (e.g. the UK) to agree anything
none of this is surprising behavior for an organisation that is primarily a producer's cartel
the mistake was putting such an organisation in charge of the procurement in the first place
the other outrageous fact is that France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands (the "Inclusive Vaccine Alliance") had all but signed a deal back in June, then the EU commission forced itself into the process, spent three months trying to re-negotiate (for a product being produced at cost), then signed the original deal regardless
It seems that they focused too much on price.
Like if a few cents or even a few euros per dose would make any difference considering the accruing cost of the pandemic.
Like if a few cents or even a few euros per dose would make any difference considering the accruing cost of the pandemic.
Problems like these, availability of goods and distribution, are usually not solved by throwing money at them.
On the contrary, that's exactly how they are solved.
You can entice suppliers to serve you first by paying more than others, that's what Israel did.
I don't think that distribution is an issue but that can also be resolved by throwing money directly or through resources at it. Same for production and supply.
It was useless and counter-productive to drag negotiations to lower prices while throwing away 10s of billions a month to prop up locked down economies. It would have been more useful to work with suppliers to go all in on production with unlimited funds and resources so that as many factories as possible could produce (and that would have probably been cheaper overall).
You can entice suppliers to serve you first by paying more than others, that's what Israel did.
I don't think that distribution is an issue but that can also be resolved by throwing money directly or through resources at it. Same for production and supply.
It was useless and counter-productive to drag negotiations to lower prices while throwing away 10s of billions a month to prop up locked down economies. It would have been more useful to work with suppliers to go all in on production with unlimited funds and resources so that as many factories as possible could produce (and that would have probably been cheaper overall).
Adding new production not only costs money, but also takes time. And while the EU has money, time was the problem. Risking to repeat myself, the initial orders were enough. And they took the existing production capacity i to account. Except some early prod hick ups, things were running rather smooth on the production end, until the public and media pressured the EU to increase order volumes.
I think the vaccine distribution will solve itself, not by throwing money at it but by the vaccine surplus we will have come June/July. It will be solved by throwing inventory at it, inventory covers up all kind of supply chain issues. Stringent supply management and control would be a lit faster and more efficient so. Ordering more probably made the problems worse, kind of like ehat happened with toilet paper a year ago.
The goal was not be the first to start, but to be fast to finish inoculation of the EU population. The initial ordering of the EU allowed that, everything member states and the EU did since January made this goal harder to achieve. And made it harder for developing countries to start their campaigns. All because the media knows shit about numbers, the politicians know shit about supply chains and everybody cares more about PR and elections than solving a problem.
I think the vaccine distribution will solve itself, not by throwing money at it but by the vaccine surplus we will have come June/July. It will be solved by throwing inventory at it, inventory covers up all kind of supply chain issues. Stringent supply management and control would be a lit faster and more efficient so. Ordering more probably made the problems worse, kind of like ehat happened with toilet paper a year ago.
The goal was not be the first to start, but to be fast to finish inoculation of the EU population. The initial ordering of the EU allowed that, everything member states and the EU did since January made this goal harder to achieve. And made it harder for developing countries to start their campaigns. All because the media knows shit about numbers, the politicians know shit about supply chains and everybody cares more about PR and elections than solving a problem.
I do not care one single iota about who was first or paid most. What is clear is that people are dying unnecessarily because of this competition. The ethical thing would to be minimise the number of people dying of covid-19.
Distributing these vaccines evenly based upon risk factors (age, BMI, ...) is what should have happened. Practical example:
- My double marathon running, under 40 brother in law in Israel is low risk. He should not have received the vaccine yet, even if I like him.
- My heavily overweight 71 years old father is high risk. He should have received the vaccine already.
The EU, the UK, the US, Israel _and_ most of the manufacturers failed abysmally at this.
Distributing these vaccines evenly based upon risk factors (age, BMI, ...) is what should have happened. Practical example:
- My double marathon running, under 40 brother in law in Israel is low risk. He should not have received the vaccine yet, even if I like him.
- My heavily overweight 71 years old father is high risk. He should have received the vaccine already.
The EU, the UK, the US, Israel _and_ most of the manufacturers failed abysmally at this.
Straight out disagree. One of the most fundamental purposes of a country is to prioritize the interests (and most fundamentally life) of its own citizens.
If countries agreed on things like resource distribution, human rights, economic structure, reward incentives, culture, there would be no need for different nations.
This is purely a negotiation. "Ethics" is a weak appeal stemming from a failure to plan, invest, and execute.
If countries agreed on things like resource distribution, human rights, economic structure, reward incentives, culture, there would be no need for different nations.
This is purely a negotiation. "Ethics" is a weak appeal stemming from a failure to plan, invest, and execute.
The loyalties of a country's government should absolutely be with its constituents. That loyalty does not necessarily mean that the health of its inhabitants only should be the government's concern.
I can perfectly imagine a healthy 40 years old UK constituent supporting the idea that a 80 years old EU constituent should get priority over him. Or the other way round obviously, should that situation ever occur. Governments could take that into account, but we don't even have to go down that contentious rabbit hole to find points of consensus.
I just happen to think that an opportunity to reach a Pareto optimum was missed in negotiations, particularly between the UK and the EU.
Would an agreement on proportionality in vaccine distribution really have been so difficult between the EU and the UK for example? That would have produced real advantages for both sides.
Both governments can harm each other's vaccine supplies, and it's increasingly looking like that could also become reality. That's lose-lose instead of win-win.
I can perfectly imagine a healthy 40 years old UK constituent supporting the idea that a 80 years old EU constituent should get priority over him. Or the other way round obviously, should that situation ever occur. Governments could take that into account, but we don't even have to go down that contentious rabbit hole to find points of consensus.
I just happen to think that an opportunity to reach a Pareto optimum was missed in negotiations, particularly between the UK and the EU.
Would an agreement on proportionality in vaccine distribution really have been so difficult between the EU and the UK for example? That would have produced real advantages for both sides.
Both governments can harm each other's vaccine supplies, and it's increasingly looking like that could also become reality. That's lose-lose instead of win-win.
The problem with that is that in reality, there's very little the UK can do to supply the EU with a meaningful number of vaccines. You've got to remember that the UK has less than a sixth the population of the EU and doesn't have much local pharmaceutical manufacturing. What Covid-19 vaccine manufacturing we do have only has enough capacity to supply part of the UK demand as, basically, a back-up plan in case everyone goes vaccine nationalist and bans exports.
Any real solution to the EU's vaccination problem basically has to involve fixing their vaccine supply chains, not getting magical extra vaccines from somewhere else because there is no supply of vaccines from elsewhere that could fill their gaps. All the rabble-rousing about UK-made vaccines from the European Commission and the rest of the EU is just an attempt to distract from that because the actual cause is really politically inconvenient for the people trying to blame the UK.
Any real solution to the EU's vaccination problem basically has to involve fixing their vaccine supply chains, not getting magical extra vaccines from somewhere else because there is no supply of vaccines from elsewhere that could fill their gaps. All the rabble-rousing about UK-made vaccines from the European Commission and the rest of the EU is just an attempt to distract from that because the actual cause is really politically inconvenient for the people trying to blame the UK.
> I do not care one single iota about who was first or paid most.
This is 100% guaranteed method to get shitty vaccine development and production in the future.
Money is the ultimate incentive - instead of haggling down they should have measured the cost of damages caused by delayed vaccination and tried to outbid.
This idiotic notion that we should prevent pharma companies from profiting on this is exactly why nobody wants to do vaccine development in the first place.
This is 100% guaranteed method to get shitty vaccine development and production in the future.
Money is the ultimate incentive - instead of haggling down they should have measured the cost of damages caused by delayed vaccination and tried to outbid.
This idiotic notion that we should prevent pharma companies from profiting on this is exactly why nobody wants to do vaccine development in the first place.
More than that they should have helped invest in production im hope that things would work. The US wwasn't known as a vaccine production power before, but with some investment we have a significant supply now.
Does that even make sense?
What if your 71 year old father is an agoraphobic hermit and your brother has some wonder job that puts him in a position to literally save the lives of other people as long as he's in close proximity to them.
I understand this is a hard to credit hypothetical but in those circumstances or similar ones we might want your brother at the head of the line. Not because he's more likely to die but because he's more likely to infect me. Or say, any hypothetical fellow citizen.
Frankly I think the most critical thing is to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. Any other criteria should come after "as many as quickly." After that sure, have an argument over if more important to get people who might die vaccinated or people who might spread it vaccinated. Knock yourself out - but don't get in the way of the critical thing.
What if your 71 year old father is an agoraphobic hermit and your brother has some wonder job that puts him in a position to literally save the lives of other people as long as he's in close proximity to them.
I understand this is a hard to credit hypothetical but in those circumstances or similar ones we might want your brother at the head of the line. Not because he's more likely to die but because he's more likely to infect me. Or say, any hypothetical fellow citizen.
Frankly I think the most critical thing is to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. Any other criteria should come after "as many as quickly." After that sure, have an argument over if more important to get people who might die vaccinated or people who might spread it vaccinated. Knock yourself out - but don't get in the way of the critical thing.
> Distributing these vaccines evenly based upon risk factors (age, BMI, ...) is what should have happened.
this is exactly what the UK has been doing?
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/17157/production...
this is exactly what the UK has been doing?
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/17157/production...
> The ethical thing would to be minimise the number of people dying of covid-19.
Yes and when the EU delays signing contracts, and focuses so much on price, they cause more people to die from covid by slowing the process along.
I agree that the best way forward would have been to minimize deaths of covid, by them not worrying so much about prices and instead supporting development of the vaccine as quickly as possible.
Yes and when the EU delays signing contracts, and focuses so much on price, they cause more people to die from covid by slowing the process along.
I agree that the best way forward would have been to minimize deaths of covid, by them not worrying so much about prices and instead supporting development of the vaccine as quickly as possible.
Is that at all possible on the time scales we're talking about? It depends so much on the distribution networks, health services, willingness of population and everything else of each individual country.
Unless I read this wrong. You are seriously suggesting that we should do global risk-factor prioritization? Meaning that the 50year olds in New York are not allowed to take their doses until 70 year old anti-vaxxerss in the Slovenian alps have had theirs?
Unless I read this wrong. You are seriously suggesting that we should do global risk-factor prioritization? Meaning that the 50year olds in New York are not allowed to take their doses until 70 year old anti-vaxxerss in the Slovenian alps have had theirs?
This is not true, the contract for EU and UK are largely the same. The EU even signed 1 day earlier.
This is FUD originating from AZ, which are downright lying.
This is FUD originating from AZ, which are downright lying.
No, this isn't FUD. AZ wasn't lying. Yes, it's true that the EU signed one particular contract one day before the UK on August 27. However, the UK had a binding contract with AZ since May already.
"However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said."
This quote is from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
"However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said."
This quote is from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
The origin of the UKs priority access to the AZ vaccine was due to their early funding of the Oxford vaccine on condition of 1st priority. This was before AZ even got involved. In fact the UK govt had such deep involvement that they were able to veto a deal between Oxford and Merck to manufacture and distribute the vaccine over fears that it would allow Trump to block their priority access through export controls (as Merck would manufacture in the US) so the UK make Oxford partner with AZ. AZ inherited that pre-existing deal between Oxford and the UK govt.
AZ is lying:
Here the boss is telling the UK signed in june : https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-inno...
Except it didn't, the UK signed on august 28th, 1 day after the EU (per your link).
In the interview from my link he also says that no vaccines manufactured in the EU leave for countries outside of the EU.
Except he lies about that too: Italy prohibited the export of vaccines to Australia. Last i checked Australia is not a part of the EU.
Here the boss is telling the UK signed in june : https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-inno...
Except it didn't, the UK signed on august 28th, 1 day after the EU (per your link).
In the interview from my link he also says that no vaccines manufactured in the EU leave for countries outside of the EU.
Except he lies about that too: Italy prohibited the export of vaccines to Australia. Last i checked Australia is not a part of the EU.
Nobody is lying, the redacted agreements do indeed show that the UK agreement is dated to a day after the EU agreement but that says nothing about when money changed hands or prior deals or commitments. You get a 3 month difference between the UK and the EU because the UK had an agreement with AstraZeneca all the way back on the 17th of May (note: June -> Aug is not 3 months, that's sloppy reporting from your linked website) as can be seen here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/funding-and-manufacturing...
or here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/17/uk-plans-38m...
and this is on top of funding Oxford had received from the UK prior to the Oxford-AZ deal. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-03-24-oxfords-covid-19-resear...
Yet the publicly announced deal with the EU was on the 27th of August: https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/eu-pays-e3...
It should be noted at this point that France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, had jointly negotiated a deal with AZ in June but my understanding is that after an EU27 vote the EC took over negotiations and you get the final (and first for the EU) deal in August.
Why the redacted UK agreement is dated 28th of August is anybodies guess but some things should be made clear, firstly that the UK started funding AZ in May and not late August, secondly that they did this a month before other EU countries had reached an agreement with AZ, and finally that the EC getting involved added a further 2 months to the negotiation.
or here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/17/uk-plans-38m...
and this is on top of funding Oxford had received from the UK prior to the Oxford-AZ deal. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-03-24-oxfords-covid-19-resear...
Yet the publicly announced deal with the EU was on the 27th of August: https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/eu-pays-e3...
It should be noted at this point that France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, had jointly negotiated a deal with AZ in June but my understanding is that after an EU27 vote the EC took over negotiations and you get the final (and first for the EU) deal in August.
Why the redacted UK agreement is dated 28th of August is anybodies guess but some things should be made clear, firstly that the UK started funding AZ in May and not late August, secondly that they did this a month before other EU countries had reached an agreement with AZ, and finally that the EC getting involved added a further 2 months to the negotiation.
I'm not sure AZ said otherwise. I did check and you are correct about signing date.
However the devil as always is in the detail and the two contracts are different and best covered here: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
Crux being the UK contract was a contractual commitment to deliver whilst the EU contract was best effort.
However the devil as always is in the detail and the two contracts are different and best covered here: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
Crux being the UK contract was a contractual commitment to deliver whilst the EU contract was best effort.
This link says that the contract are comparable: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/astrazeneca-signed-va...
[deleted]
I'm not sure that I would call the number of Pfitzer/BioNTech vaccines exported to young people in Israel fair so that they can party, while my parents inside the EU are waiting locked in for half a year now because they are scared of dying (and some of their friends already dead from COVID :( )
The EU decided to spend 750 billion euro of money it does not have (on credit - see [0]) for post-Covid recovery, but at the same time decided to save as much as possible on vaccines. I think that 'penny wise, pound foolish' applies. It would be unfair to Israel if they paid extra surcharge for their vaccines and later were told by European authorities "sorry, we will confiscate them, bad luck."
If we instead paid some 10 extra euro per dose, it would have added up to about 1 per cent of the planned recovery fund - and an extra factory or two could have been built during last autumn to start cranking out the vaccines by millions as soon as approved.
[0] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-agrees-on-750-billion-euro-recovery...
If we instead paid some 10 extra euro per dose, it would have added up to about 1 per cent of the planned recovery fund - and an extra factory or two could have been built during last autumn to start cranking out the vaccines by millions as soon as approved.
[0] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-agrees-on-750-billion-euro-recovery...
Note that for a lot of countries, with perhaps less than competent governments, that money will end up right alongside where our tax money goes, in the hands of the corrupt.
It doesn't matter where the money goes in the grand scheme. What matters is that we have enough vaccines to end the pandemic. Whatever we needed to do to achieve this is what we should have done instead of worrying about hypothetical corruption and penny pinching.
Wow, you almost make it seem like Israel has done something wrong.
Nope, it was EU. the EU wanted to wait for final, concrete results before mass adoption.
The EU was very skeptical regarding the vaccines. the EU wanted to perform bulk orders as a union which complicated the ordering process.
The issue is not necessary the number of vaccines but the entire infrastructure to ship, cool and vaccinate people.
Israel had good existing infrastructure, willingness to pay up-front and high demand for the vaccine.
* will note that Israel also agreed to share vaccination data with Pfizer to locate any anomalies\problems
Nope, it was EU. the EU wanted to wait for final, concrete results before mass adoption.
The EU was very skeptical regarding the vaccines. the EU wanted to perform bulk orders as a union which complicated the ordering process.
The issue is not necessary the number of vaccines but the entire infrastructure to ship, cool and vaccinate people.
Israel had good existing infrastructure, willingness to pay up-front and high demand for the vaccine.
* will note that Israel also agreed to share vaccination data with Pfizer to locate any anomalies\problems
There's no issue with the infrastructure, the Pfizer vaccines are not coming, because Israel has priority. I'm not saying Israel did anything wrong, they are protecting their population and payed the price for it, while EU was trying to get the price of the vaccine down instead of thinking about the consequences of every lost day.
Also if infrastructure whould be a problem, US solved it by just hoarding vaccines: at the end of the year they had 40M Moderna vaccines on stock, they weren't able to use it, but they didn't give it to other countries.
Also if infrastructure whould be a problem, US solved it by just hoarding vaccines: at the end of the year they had 40M Moderna vaccines on stock, they weren't able to use it, but they didn't give it to other countries.
France, a while back, was receiving good numbers but were failing to keep up in terms of demand\infrastructure.
I think now EU is far more active when it comes to the efforts but initially, they were not.
It seems like there is more resistance in the EU to vaccination and data sharing than in Israel.
I think now EU is far more active when it comes to the efforts but initially, they were not.
It seems like there is more resistance in the EU to vaccination and data sharing than in Israel.
France has no problem vaccinating people, they just adjust their strategy based on deliveries.
If you look here https://covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker/ you'll see that on the second graph, the blue curves (vaccination) closely follow the gray curve (deliveries).
And while France is one of the most anti-vaccine countries in the world, there is still no shortage of people wanting to be vaccinated.
In the end, I just think it is just the result of negotiations. Now, it is essentially a zero-sum game, the only way to get more doses is to take it from others, and the EU wasn't as aggressive. We will all get vaccines in the end, it is just about how much you value your head start.
If you look here https://covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker/ you'll see that on the second graph, the blue curves (vaccination) closely follow the gray curve (deliveries).
And while France is one of the most anti-vaccine countries in the world, there is still no shortage of people wanting to be vaccinated.
In the end, I just think it is just the result of negotiations. Now, it is essentially a zero-sum game, the only way to get more doses is to take it from others, and the EU wasn't as aggressive. We will all get vaccines in the end, it is just about how much you value your head start.
There's resistance to AstraZeneca vaccine, and in my country (Hungary) to Sinopharm and SPUTNIK-V. Russian troops invaded Hungary in the past, so there's not much trust in a Russian vaccine, we trust the EU and US more, but the government is laundering lots of money by getting vaccines from the east (they payed $31 per dose for Sinopharm vaccine)
You're looking at thing as they are now.
Now, as I've said, there's demand\need since the EU scaled up the vaccination efforts however, look back 3-5 months.
EU was discussing just how to split\manage the vaccines among the union members, while Israel was vaccinating at a neck-breaking pace.
While my family in EU were not sure if they want to be vaccinated, people in Israel were waiting hours in line to even get a chance to get vaccinated.
Israel currently has over 80% of the population vaccinated, I'm willing to bet that even if you provide that number of vaccines to any European country, the numbers will be far lower.
Now, as I've said, there's demand\need since the EU scaled up the vaccination efforts however, look back 3-5 months.
EU was discussing just how to split\manage the vaccines among the union members, while Israel was vaccinating at a neck-breaking pace.
While my family in EU were not sure if they want to be vaccinated, people in Israel were waiting hours in line to even get a chance to get vaccinated.
Israel currently has over 80% of the population vaccinated, I'm willing to bet that even if you provide that number of vaccines to any European country, the numbers will be far lower.
The United States was the first country to approve the Moderna vaccine. If the US "wasn't able to use it" then neither was any other country.
Israel paid a LOT more for the vaccine to ensure early supply.
They are also tiny - a lot smaller than you might think, they are not really hogging all that much supply in terms of absolute numbers.
And finally they agreed to be the research study for the world, so what they are doing does have value, even for your parents in the EU. In particular they will answer the question: If you immunize everyone does COVID stop?
They are also tiny - a lot smaller than you might think, they are not really hogging all that much supply in terms of absolute numbers.
And finally they agreed to be the research study for the world, so what they are doing does have value, even for your parents in the EU. In particular they will answer the question: If you immunize everyone does COVID stop?
“Fair” isn’t well defined at the best of times.
I certainly want this all over ASAP, the vaccination isn’t as fast as I want; my biggest concern right now is the overlap between anti-mask-and-and-lockdown protestors and anti-vaccination protestors.
I certainly want this all over ASAP, the vaccination isn’t as fast as I want; my biggest concern right now is the overlap between anti-mask-and-and-lockdown protestors and anti-vaccination protestors.
I wish anti-vaccination protest would be real, that would mean that I would get my own vaccine faster, but I don't see that happening.
cdash(2)
> the EU is trying to be good and is sharing its vaccinations more or less fairly with other countries
The AstraZeneca factory in the Netherlands is owned by AstraZeneca, not the EU commission. World War 2 ended a long time ago.
The AstraZeneca factory in the Netherlands is owned by AstraZeneca, not the EU commission. World War 2 ended a long time ago.
Pfizer and Moderna production factories in the US are not owned by the government either, but they are prohibited from exporting a single dose of vaccine until the US government has enough doses to vaccinate the entire US population.
If that was a condition of the contract between two parties and the two parties agreed, then what's the problem?
This is a pretty weird kind of contract?
Executive Order 13962—Ensuring Access to United States Government COVID-19 Vaccines December 08, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/11/2020-27...
Executive Order 13962—Ensuring Access to United States Government COVID-19 Vaccines December 08, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/11/2020-27...
First of all, I don't know if this is purely contractual or not. Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. But I remember earlier in the vaccination campaign the news talked about how the companies will be free to export after they have fulfilled their 100-million-dose obligation to the US, but later that changed to 300-million doses. Perhaps this was part of the original contact, perhaps it was forced on them later on. Regardless:
The problem with this approach is that if this becomes the norm, which so far it seems it will, the next pandemic, the rest of the world will be mega super screwed. Right now, the saving grace of us folks in Canada is that the EU, unlike US and UK, did not prohibit vaccine exports. If they had put the same barriers, we Canadians (as well as most other nations on earth) would have had to wait for the great powers (US/UK/EU) to finish vaccinating their 16-year olds before we could start vaccinating our 90-year olds. So many would have died who would have survived if the vaccines were shared between countries based on population or elderly demographics. It would have been a net gain for US/UK/EU, a net loss for Canada/etc and a net loss for the world as a whole. That's because when you prioritize not-at-risk population from country A over at-risk population from country B, for every A citizen you save, you cause 7900 citizens from country B to die [0].
Also, let's not pretend any country could have signed such a contract with the vaccine manufacturers. If Canada tried to sign a contract with a US manufacturer that said they would give Canada their 96-million-dose contract before selling a single dose to the US, I bet the US government would have ripped the contact to shreds and imposed their own rules on it. Only the countries in which the vaccine producers are located can sign such contracts. So in practice, there is little difference between contract and rule-making in terms of who can do it and what the outcomes are.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
The problem with this approach is that if this becomes the norm, which so far it seems it will, the next pandemic, the rest of the world will be mega super screwed. Right now, the saving grace of us folks in Canada is that the EU, unlike US and UK, did not prohibit vaccine exports. If they had put the same barriers, we Canadians (as well as most other nations on earth) would have had to wait for the great powers (US/UK/EU) to finish vaccinating their 16-year olds before we could start vaccinating our 90-year olds. So many would have died who would have survived if the vaccines were shared between countries based on population or elderly demographics. It would have been a net gain for US/UK/EU, a net loss for Canada/etc and a net loss for the world as a whole. That's because when you prioritize not-at-risk population from country A over at-risk population from country B, for every A citizen you save, you cause 7900 citizens from country B to die [0].
Also, let's not pretend any country could have signed such a contract with the vaccine manufacturers. If Canada tried to sign a contract with a US manufacturer that said they would give Canada their 96-million-dose contract before selling a single dose to the US, I bet the US government would have ripped the contact to shreds and imposed their own rules on it. Only the countries in which the vaccine producers are located can sign such contracts. So in practice, there is little difference between contract and rule-making in terms of who can do it and what the outcomes are.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
Yea... idk how I feel about this. It's definitely the responsibility of a country to protect its citizens first and foremost above all others. On the other hand, maybe once the majority of what would be considered at-risk is vaccinated then a country could export vaccines, but that's really just the prerogative of the country. As a citizen of the U.S. I would be livid if we were exporting vaccines to other countries before we were mostly vaccinated here in my country. It would also severely undermine trust in the U.S. government and give fuel to those who seek to isolate the country from the rest of the world. What better example of "put others ahead of your own countrymen" could you make up?
Anyway - the US is exporting vaccines to Mexico and Canada [1]. You should (as a Canadian) start to see lots of vaccine shipments come in from the U.S. as the supply chain juggernaut awakens. I'm not sure what help Canada will actually get from the EU. So far I've seen little in the way of actual numbers.
I see the U.S. and U.K. looking very strong after initially not so great reactions to the virus.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-to-send-combined-...
Anyway - the US is exporting vaccines to Mexico and Canada [1]. You should (as a Canadian) start to see lots of vaccine shipments come in from the U.S. as the supply chain juggernaut awakens. I'm not sure what help Canada will actually get from the EU. So far I've seen little in the way of actual numbers.
I see the U.S. and U.K. looking very strong after initially not so great reactions to the virus.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-to-send-combined-...
The EU has already exported 3.9 million doses to Canada. 3.1 million to Mexico and 1 million to the US (source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_...)
Meanwhile the US is now exporting (as a loan!) 2.5 million doses to Mexico and 1.5 million to Canada (source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56451810) acting like it‘s a grand humanitarian gesture when the vaccine isn‘t even approved for use in the US. A further 3 million doses are being kept in storage.
I understand - but disagree with - you stance that a country should put its own citizens first. In the end, it‘s India, China, Russia and the EU who give the vast majority of countries any chance of vaccinating their most at-risk citizens. I suspect this won‘t be forgotten.
Meanwhile the US is now exporting (as a loan!) 2.5 million doses to Mexico and 1.5 million to Canada (source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56451810) acting like it‘s a grand humanitarian gesture when the vaccine isn‘t even approved for use in the US. A further 3 million doses are being kept in storage.
I understand - but disagree with - you stance that a country should put its own citizens first. In the end, it‘s India, China, Russia and the EU who give the vast majority of countries any chance of vaccinating their most at-risk citizens. I suspect this won‘t be forgotten.
I am happy that the EU allows vaccine exports but I expect this pandemic to be the last one they do. Voters in US and UK are happy and praising their government. Voters in EU are not so happy. They are going to elect a government which would put EU citizens first. Non-US/UK/EU citizens would of course be in favour of a robust export and sharing program, but they don't get a say, so vaccine nationalism will win.
> acting like it‘s a grand humanitarian gesture when the vaccine isn‘t even approved for use in the US.
"Under the agreement, the countries must return any excess doses to the US."
I see 0 problem with this.
> A further 3 million doses are being kept in storage.
Yep no problem with this either...
> In the end, it‘s India, China, Russia and the EU who give the vast majority of countries any chance of vaccinating their most at-risk citizens. I suspect this won‘t be forgotten.
I think you're severely underestimating how quickly the U.S. is vaccinating and how quickly these shipments will hit the rest of the world. There are ~8 billion people on Earth, and the U.S. and U.K. are leading the way [1] in vaccinating their populations. Once the U.S. is fully vaccinated, tens of millions of doses will flow to the rest of the world on behalf of the U.S. Hell, the U.S. has administered almost more doses than Russia, India, and China combined but those are the countries that will save the world? C'mon.
I personally don't understand the "your country shouldn't put its own citizens first" mentality. It's honestly just incompatible with my own world view as we currently see the world. I mean, we need minimum wage increases here in the U.S. - why isn't the E.U. paying? [2]
This notion is just not very reflective of how the world works, or how humans work for that matter. I guess if the E.U. wants to export all its vaccines so E.U. citizens (why do they even have citizenship? why is it even an organization? Why are there even member states?) get them last - that's their prerogative and I'm sure the E.U. voters will support or reject that. In the U.S. and U.K. I think we take the view that you have to put your mask on first before you help someone put theirs on.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccina... [2] This notion is easy to dismiss. If you truly believed this you'd feed starving kids in other places instead of your own or any of your friends or relatives. Nobody operates this way so why pretend that nations must?
"Under the agreement, the countries must return any excess doses to the US."
I see 0 problem with this.
> A further 3 million doses are being kept in storage.
Yep no problem with this either...
> In the end, it‘s India, China, Russia and the EU who give the vast majority of countries any chance of vaccinating their most at-risk citizens. I suspect this won‘t be forgotten.
I think you're severely underestimating how quickly the U.S. is vaccinating and how quickly these shipments will hit the rest of the world. There are ~8 billion people on Earth, and the U.S. and U.K. are leading the way [1] in vaccinating their populations. Once the U.S. is fully vaccinated, tens of millions of doses will flow to the rest of the world on behalf of the U.S. Hell, the U.S. has administered almost more doses than Russia, India, and China combined but those are the countries that will save the world? C'mon.
I personally don't understand the "your country shouldn't put its own citizens first" mentality. It's honestly just incompatible with my own world view as we currently see the world. I mean, we need minimum wage increases here in the U.S. - why isn't the E.U. paying? [2]
This notion is just not very reflective of how the world works, or how humans work for that matter. I guess if the E.U. wants to export all its vaccines so E.U. citizens (why do they even have citizenship? why is it even an organization? Why are there even member states?) get them last - that's their prerogative and I'm sure the E.U. voters will support or reject that. In the U.S. and U.K. I think we take the view that you have to put your mask on first before you help someone put theirs on.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccina... [2] This notion is easy to dismiss. If you truly believed this you'd feed starving kids in other places instead of your own or any of your friends or relatives. Nobody operates this way so why pretend that nations must?
I think you underestimate a populations capacity for compassion. This is why (some) European countries took on millions of refugees in the last ten years. It‘s also why Romania donated some of their vaccines to Moldova - donated mind you, not loaned.
There‘s also the aspect of soft power. China and Russia are playing this particularly well right now, supplying other nations faster than their own population. This will buy them influence for decades to come.
There‘s also the aspect of soft power. China and Russia are playing this particularly well right now, supplying other nations faster than their own population. This will buy them influence for decades to come.
> This is why (some) European countries took on millions of refugees in the last ten years.
I don't really view this as much in the way of compassion. It's more like that the E.U. is getting old and not having babies and they need more people to pay taxes. It's also counter-productive from a global perspective. You have to fix the reasons these people migrate in the first place.
> China and Russia are playing this particularly well right now, supplying other nations faster than their own population.
Are they? Do you have a link? I saw from the New York Times tracker that China has vaccinated 74 million of their own citizens. Are you saying they've sent more vaccines to the rest of the world than the 74 million they've used on their own? If so color me impressed.
Your point about the vaccine being supplied to other countries is certainly well taken - but the idea that the U.S. and U.K. won't be supplying vaccines (Vaccine Diplomacy) to buy influence as well or in counter moves to Russian and Chinese influence would be naive.
I think a lot of people are suffering from Trump hangover. The U.S. is quickly getting things back together.
I don't really view this as much in the way of compassion. It's more like that the E.U. is getting old and not having babies and they need more people to pay taxes. It's also counter-productive from a global perspective. You have to fix the reasons these people migrate in the first place.
> China and Russia are playing this particularly well right now, supplying other nations faster than their own population.
Are they? Do you have a link? I saw from the New York Times tracker that China has vaccinated 74 million of their own citizens. Are you saying they've sent more vaccines to the rest of the world than the 74 million they've used on their own? If so color me impressed.
Your point about the vaccine being supplied to other countries is certainly well taken - but the idea that the U.S. and U.K. won't be supplying vaccines (Vaccine Diplomacy) to buy influence as well or in counter moves to Russian and Chinese influence would be naive.
I think a lot of people are suffering from Trump hangover. The U.S. is quickly getting things back together.
Up-to-date data is hard to come by, especially for China I couldn‘t find much concrete.
Russia (based on an article from March 7th: https://www.google.de/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/wire...) had vaccinated 4 million people domestically and exported 2.5 million doses to Argentina, 325k to Hungary and 200k to Mexico. There have been many other other exports reported but most without a concrete number.
For China, one data point is that the Most Chile‘s 5 million vaccinations were with Chinese vaccine. (Source: https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2230962...)
> Your point about the vaccine being supplied to other countries is certainly well taken - but the idea that the U.S. and U.K. won't be supplying vaccines (Vaccine Diplomacy) to buy influence as well or in counter moves to Russian and Chinese influence would be naive.
I‘m sure they will. But not before elate summer. And, to exaggerate, people won‘t forget if their grandma died of COVID while college kids were vaccinated in the US.
Russia (based on an article from March 7th: https://www.google.de/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/wire...) had vaccinated 4 million people domestically and exported 2.5 million doses to Argentina, 325k to Hungary and 200k to Mexico. There have been many other other exports reported but most without a concrete number.
For China, one data point is that the Most Chile‘s 5 million vaccinations were with Chinese vaccine. (Source: https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2230962...)
> Your point about the vaccine being supplied to other countries is certainly well taken - but the idea that the U.S. and U.K. won't be supplying vaccines (Vaccine Diplomacy) to buy influence as well or in counter moves to Russian and Chinese influence would be naive.
I‘m sure they will. But not before elate summer. And, to exaggerate, people won‘t forget if their grandma died of COVID while college kids were vaccinated in the US.
> And, to exaggerate, people won‘t forget if their grandma died of COVID while college kids were vaccinated in the US.
Likewise, Americans who pay taxes and live in America and expect America to defend them and guard their welfare and safety won't forget if their college kid dies of COVID-19 because the government shipped vaccines overseas and they couldn't get one.
If you don't like that and want to criticize the nation state system ok that's fine. Start with some other country like China, or Brazil, or Israel. People won't forget that China already vaccinated 74 million of its own people when people in (insert country) died!
Likewise, Americans who pay taxes and live in America and expect America to defend them and guard their welfare and safety won't forget if their college kid dies of COVID-19 because the government shipped vaccines overseas and they couldn't get one.
If you don't like that and want to criticize the nation state system ok that's fine. Start with some other country like China, or Brazil, or Israel. People won't forget that China already vaccinated 74 million of its own people when people in (insert country) died!
> Are they? Do you have a link? I saw from the New York Times tracker that China has vaccinated 74 million of their own citizens. Are you saying they've sent more vaccines to the rest of the world than the 74 million they've used on their own? If so color me impressed.
12 millon Sinovac doses have been shipped to Chile so far.
12 millon Sinovac doses have been shipped to Chile so far.
> Hell, the U.S. has administered almost more doses than Russia, India, and China combined but those are the countries that will save the world? C'mon.
Yes. The US administered those vaccines to people in the US, so it does not save the world. On the other hand, India, one of the countries you ridicule, exported 58 million vaccines, almost twice as many as what they administered locally.[1] The EU has exported 34 million.[2] In comparison, the US is exporting 4 million.[3]
> Once the U.S. is fully vaccinated, tens of millions of doses will flow to the rest of the world on behalf of the U.S.
If we're talking future flows, Indonesia alone is set to receive 140 million doses from China.[4] India is ramping up production from 60-70 million monthly doses to 100 million monthly doses from April.[5] "Tens of millions" of doses from the US is a drop in the ocean compared to that.
1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-india-...
2. https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/11/covid-vaccine-brussels-s...
3. https://m.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-us-to-send-first-vacc...
4. https://go.kompas.com/read/2021/02/17/172557174/indonesia-to...
5. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/18/9780657...
Yes. The US administered those vaccines to people in the US, so it does not save the world. On the other hand, India, one of the countries you ridicule, exported 58 million vaccines, almost twice as many as what they administered locally.[1] The EU has exported 34 million.[2] In comparison, the US is exporting 4 million.[3]
> Once the U.S. is fully vaccinated, tens of millions of doses will flow to the rest of the world on behalf of the U.S.
If we're talking future flows, Indonesia alone is set to receive 140 million doses from China.[4] India is ramping up production from 60-70 million monthly doses to 100 million monthly doses from April.[5] "Tens of millions" of doses from the US is a drop in the ocean compared to that.
1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-india-...
2. https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/11/covid-vaccine-brussels-s...
3. https://m.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-us-to-send-first-vacc...
4. https://go.kompas.com/read/2021/02/17/172557174/indonesia-to...
5. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/18/9780657...
Let's be clear here - I haven't ridiculed any country. I'm defending the actions of the U.S. and U.K.
> "Tens of millions" of doses from the US is a drop in the ocean compared to that.
> so it does not save the world
Ok fine. We can let India and China save the world. I don't really care anymore. We'll keep all of our doses since it's just a drop in the ocean and doesn't matter. No wonder so many in America are becoming isolationist and protectionist. I'm so over all day every day just hearing about how awful America is.
"America sucks it can't vaccinate its own people!"
"America sucks it's not donating vaccines to other people in the world!"
Anyway - why exactly was there ever this big competition to see who could export the most doses?
> "Many Indians, however, now want the government to make vaccines available to more of its own people instead of only the elderly and those above 45 suffering from health conditions.
> “The priority of the Modi government is not the state but foreign nations,” Congress said on Twitter, using the tag #IndiaNeedsMoreVaccines and accusing the premier of focusing on “PR over people”." [1]
> India, the world's biggest vaccine maker, has gifted or sold here 59 million locally produced doses compared with 33 million doses given to its own people since its inoculation campaign began in mid-January.
Hmm. I wonder how much those definitely not corrupt Pharma companies made by selling vaccines to other countries instead of giving them to equally at-risk Indians?
Why do people always try and make these situations so black and white?
> "Tens of millions" of doses from the US is a drop in the ocean compared to that.
> so it does not save the world
Ok fine. We can let India and China save the world. I don't really care anymore. We'll keep all of our doses since it's just a drop in the ocean and doesn't matter. No wonder so many in America are becoming isolationist and protectionist. I'm so over all day every day just hearing about how awful America is.
"America sucks it can't vaccinate its own people!"
"America sucks it's not donating vaccines to other people in the world!"
Anyway - why exactly was there ever this big competition to see who could export the most doses?
> "Many Indians, however, now want the government to make vaccines available to more of its own people instead of only the elderly and those above 45 suffering from health conditions.
> “The priority of the Modi government is not the state but foreign nations,” Congress said on Twitter, using the tag #IndiaNeedsMoreVaccines and accusing the premier of focusing on “PR over people”." [1]
> India, the world's biggest vaccine maker, has gifted or sold here 59 million locally produced doses compared with 33 million doses given to its own people since its inoculation campaign began in mid-January.
Hmm. I wonder how much those definitely not corrupt Pharma companies made by selling vaccines to other countries instead of giving them to equally at-risk Indians?
Why do people always try and make these situations so black and white?
> The US administered those vaccines to people in the US, so it does not save the world.
The US is part of the world, and vaccinating an American does as much to save the world as vaccinating a non-American. For a country that isn't yet fully vaccinated and isn't vaccinating at the limit of its own logistical capability, the most effective contribution it can make to saving the world is to ramp up internal vaccinations.
> "Tens of millions" of vaccines is a drop in the ocean compared to that.
The US has contracted for production of nearly vaccines for about 200 million more people than there are people in the US, all but 100 million of which are due by July 31.
The US is part of the world, and vaccinating an American does as much to save the world as vaccinating a non-American. For a country that isn't yet fully vaccinated and isn't vaccinating at the limit of its own logistical capability, the most effective contribution it can make to saving the world is to ramp up internal vaccinations.
> "Tens of millions" of vaccines is a drop in the ocean compared to that.
The US has contracted for production of nearly vaccines for about 200 million more people than there are people in the US, all but 100 million of which are due by July 31.
I don't understand the negative reaction here. A human is a human. The US is still contributing to global vaccinations count heavily and once majority of Americans are inoculated, the world will soon be flush with those doses too. Then there's the fact that Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J were all involved in making them in the first place...
I think the negative reaction comes from thinking that, vaccinating an 80 year old Indonesian is the same as vaccinating a 22 year old American. One has a much higher chance of having a severe, deadly, case COVID than the other.
That's nationalism. Not all of us are nationalists. But unfortunately, there are enough nationalists out there that the governments skew nationalist. A nationalist would say "if I had to choose either one of my fellow countrymen die or 7900 citizens of my neighbouring country die, I would choose to have that 7900 people die without a second's hesitation". A non-nationalist would not find this moral or justifiable.
By all accounts, by the time the US approves AstraZeneca vaccine, it would have enough Pfizer/Moderna doses to vaccinate the whole country. Yet it prefers to keep the stockpile (I know about the recent deal with Canada and Mexico. It's very small and very late compared to what it could have been in a better world) rather than send it to other countries, where they can save lives instead of sitting in a freezer to keep voters happy, not to keep them safe.
By all accounts, by the time the US approves AstraZeneca vaccine, it would have enough Pfizer/Moderna doses to vaccinate the whole country. Yet it prefers to keep the stockpile (I know about the recent deal with Canada and Mexico. It's very small and very late compared to what it could have been in a better world) rather than send it to other countries, where they can save lives instead of sitting in a freezer to keep voters happy, not to keep them safe.
> A nationalist would say...
This is a silly hypothetical and it paints people with reasonable beliefs in a bad light. The duty of a country is to protect its people no? Of course it's going to weigh a complicated situation and err on the side of protecting its own citizens. Otherwise why even pay taxes or have a government?
> By all accounts, by the time the US approves AstraZeneca vaccine, it would have enough Pfizer/Moderna doses to vaccinate the whole country. Yet it prefers to keep the stockpile (I know about the recent deal with Canada and Mexico. It's very small and very late compared to what it could have been in a better world) rather than send it to other countries, where they can save lives instead of sitting in a freezer to keep voters happy, not to keep them safe.
I hear lots of complaints but not much in the way of useful suggestions or actions - and keeping some vaccines in stock seems to be a prudent move. You can't save others if you can't secure yourself.
The E.U. is going to be in hot water over this. The failure of the E.U. and subsequent blaming of the U.K. and U.S. for taking care of its citizens looks really bad. You can't make this stuff up and it's going to empower separatists and right-wingers.
This is a silly hypothetical and it paints people with reasonable beliefs in a bad light. The duty of a country is to protect its people no? Of course it's going to weigh a complicated situation and err on the side of protecting its own citizens. Otherwise why even pay taxes or have a government?
> By all accounts, by the time the US approves AstraZeneca vaccine, it would have enough Pfizer/Moderna doses to vaccinate the whole country. Yet it prefers to keep the stockpile (I know about the recent deal with Canada and Mexico. It's very small and very late compared to what it could have been in a better world) rather than send it to other countries, where they can save lives instead of sitting in a freezer to keep voters happy, not to keep them safe.
I hear lots of complaints but not much in the way of useful suggestions or actions - and keeping some vaccines in stock seems to be a prudent move. You can't save others if you can't secure yourself.
The E.U. is going to be in hot water over this. The failure of the E.U. and subsequent blaming of the U.K. and U.S. for taking care of its citizens looks really bad. You can't make this stuff up and it's going to empower separatists and right-wingers.
Here is a suggestion: US is stockpiling tens of millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses. If they send them to countries which have not finished vaccinating their elderly, they will save many lives. They are not doing any good in storage. Just send them. Not a measly 4 million doses. Send 30 million doses and save lives. The US is on track to vaccinate all Americans using Pfizer and Moderna alone before AstraZeneca is expected to be approved for use in US. Why not save some lives with it?
> This is a silly hypothetical and it paints people with reasonable beliefs in a bad light.
We disagree on what is and isn't reasonable. Maybe it was unfair. It's more like "if any of those politicians dares to save 7900 foreigners instead of 1 of my fellow countrymen, I will vote them out of the office." The final outcome is the same. It's just done through an extra layer of indirection, so everyone can continue feeling good about themselves.
> The E.U. is going to be in hot water over this. The failure of the E.U. and subsequent blaming of the U.K. and U.S. for taking care of its citizens looks really bad.
Oh, the EU will be in hot water, but not because the failure of EU. It's because it is shouldering a burden alone, a burden that should have been shared. Right now, US supplies US, UK supplies UK, and EU supplies the entire world with mRNA vaccines.
What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world? As a Canadian, should I hope for an EU that would nationalize vaccines the next pandemic, like US and UK did this pandemic? If all three were exporting vaccines, the world would have been a better place and fewer people would have been dead. But here we are now, blaming the only one who is keeping Canadians (and other non-superpower nations) alive.
> This is a silly hypothetical and it paints people with reasonable beliefs in a bad light.
We disagree on what is and isn't reasonable. Maybe it was unfair. It's more like "if any of those politicians dares to save 7900 foreigners instead of 1 of my fellow countrymen, I will vote them out of the office." The final outcome is the same. It's just done through an extra layer of indirection, so everyone can continue feeling good about themselves.
> The E.U. is going to be in hot water over this. The failure of the E.U. and subsequent blaming of the U.K. and U.S. for taking care of its citizens looks really bad.
Oh, the EU will be in hot water, but not because the failure of EU. It's because it is shouldering a burden alone, a burden that should have been shared. Right now, US supplies US, UK supplies UK, and EU supplies the entire world with mRNA vaccines.
What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world? As a Canadian, should I hope for an EU that would nationalize vaccines the next pandemic, like US and UK did this pandemic? If all three were exporting vaccines, the world would have been a better place and fewer people would have been dead. But here we are now, blaming the only one who is keeping Canadians (and other non-superpower nations) alive.
> Here is a suggestion: US is stockpiling tens of millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses.
The U.S. is stockpiling them because AstraZeneca might get approval and then they can use them. They are hedging their bets. It's a sensible policy.
> Not a measly 4 million doses.
Sure, maybe we should just take them back then?
> What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world.
The E.U. has shipped like 34 million vaccines [1]. Why are people abroad more important than its own citizens?
But let's not sit here and pretend that the E.U. is saving the world here with this number of vaccines. For every elderly person they vaccinate in some other country, it's one elderly or at-risk person in the E.U. who isn't getting vaccinated.
At the end of the day it'll be the U.S. and U.K. (and maybe Israel) who will be vaccinating much of the world.
"Italy was able to block the shipment to Australia last week under a new emergency rule that allows any E.U. member to halt exports of the vaccines produced in the bloc." [2]
As I said - the E.U. is going to be in hot water over this and it's going to severely test the resolve of the union to stay together. Sending those 34 million doses out instead of vaccinating E.U. citizens is ammo for nationalists and far-right sympathizers.
> But here we are now, blaming the only one who is keeping Canadians (and other non-superpower nations) alive.
I'm not blaming anyone. You're blaming the U.S. and U.K. for protecting their citizens first and foremost.
> What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world.
Beats me. The U.S. is going to wind up shipping more vaccines to other countries than any other country. Watch and see.
[1] [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/world/europe/eu-exports-c...
The U.S. is stockpiling them because AstraZeneca might get approval and then they can use them. They are hedging their bets. It's a sensible policy.
> Not a measly 4 million doses.
Sure, maybe we should just take them back then?
> What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world.
The E.U. has shipped like 34 million vaccines [1]. Why are people abroad more important than its own citizens?
But let's not sit here and pretend that the E.U. is saving the world here with this number of vaccines. For every elderly person they vaccinate in some other country, it's one elderly or at-risk person in the E.U. who isn't getting vaccinated.
At the end of the day it'll be the U.S. and U.K. (and maybe Israel) who will be vaccinating much of the world.
"Italy was able to block the shipment to Australia last week under a new emergency rule that allows any E.U. member to halt exports of the vaccines produced in the bloc." [2]
As I said - the E.U. is going to be in hot water over this and it's going to severely test the resolve of the union to stay together. Sending those 34 million doses out instead of vaccinating E.U. citizens is ammo for nationalists and far-right sympathizers.
> But here we are now, blaming the only one who is keeping Canadians (and other non-superpower nations) alive.
I'm not blaming anyone. You're blaming the U.S. and U.K. for protecting their citizens first and foremost.
> What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world.
Beats me. The U.S. is going to wind up shipping more vaccines to other countries than any other country. Watch and see.
[1] [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/world/europe/eu-exports-c...
I have said everything and I have nothing to add. All I can say is, it is easy to defend unfairness when it benefits oneself, rather than when it hurts them. You see the same thing with the discussions about structural racism, when those who benefit from the existing system defend the status quo, not because they are moustache-twirling villains, but because human mind has a way of convincing them what is in their benefit is what is good and just. Rich people genuinely believe reducing taxes on the rich benefits everyone; lobbyists truly believe in what they lobby for; etc.
As someone on the other end of this, I cannot agree with your standpoint. "Countries should secure vaccines for all their citizens before exporting any vaccine" translates to "in an ideal world a few thousand more Canadians would die to save a dozen or so Americans/British/Europeans, and it's all fair and just" because that's the final outcome of the policies you advocate for. I imagine you are looking at this from the POV of someone who benefits from this (perhaps you are a resident of US or UK) so you have convinced yourself this is the best approach. I cannot agree.
> For every elderly person they vaccinate in some other country, it's one elderly or at-risk person in the E.U. who isn't getting vaccinated.
No. US is saying "no vaccine for anyone else until we have vaccine for every American" not just elderly Americans. While the US is busy putting vaccines in stockpile for 16 years olds, other nations' 90 years olds will die.
As someone on the other end of this, I cannot agree with your standpoint. "Countries should secure vaccines for all their citizens before exporting any vaccine" translates to "in an ideal world a few thousand more Canadians would die to save a dozen or so Americans/British/Europeans, and it's all fair and just" because that's the final outcome of the policies you advocate for. I imagine you are looking at this from the POV of someone who benefits from this (perhaps you are a resident of US or UK) so you have convinced yourself this is the best approach. I cannot agree.
> For every elderly person they vaccinate in some other country, it's one elderly or at-risk person in the E.U. who isn't getting vaccinated.
No. US is saying "no vaccine for anyone else until we have vaccine for every American" not just elderly Americans. While the US is busy putting vaccines in stockpile for 16 years olds, other nations' 90 years olds will die.
Great. Now you're trying to lump me in with "rich people" and "racists"? Do better.
> "Countries should secure vaccines for all their citizens before exporting any vaccine"
... why shouldn't they? Does a country have a duty to protect its people from harm? If my country isn't willing to put my life before everyone else in the world what's the point? And why are you drawing a line at vaccines? Why isn't Germany or France paying for minimum wage across the world? Why isn't the German army full time engaged in saving people in war-torn countries? Why isn't the E.U. giving free medicine to all people across the world?
I'm all for abolishing nation states. I get it. But let's not sit here and act like the U.S. is some big bad nationalistic monster here when you're just picking an arbitrary (and potentially convenient) line to draw.
> No.
Yes? Has Europe vaccinated all at-risk people and elderly? If not, then staunchly yes they are in fact sacrificing their own. There aren't enough vaccines to go around.
> While the US is busy putting vaccines in stockpile for 16 years olds, other nations' 90 years olds will die.
One could argue that they've lived a good life ya know? In the medical community the elderly are sacrificed to save the young all else being equal. But while the U.S. might be sacrificing 90 year olds in, idk, Thailand, the E.U. is sacrificing 90 year olds in the E.U..
> I imagine you are looking at this from the POV of someone who benefits from this
How could I not be and why would that matter? Your challenge is in the words used in the discussion. A rich person can be right about something even if they're rich.
Personally I have no illusions here. The U.S. is the giant in the room. There was no doubt in my mind that Americans were going to be vaccinated and vaccinated above all others in the world. It's exactly how a nation state operates. I wouldn't expect a nation state to sacrifice its own citizens for others in a scenario like this, though that hasn't always been the case.
Why is China vaccinating 74 million of its own people? Why aren't they sending those vaccines to North Korea or Venezuela? So nationalistic!
> "Countries should secure vaccines for all their citizens before exporting any vaccine"
... why shouldn't they? Does a country have a duty to protect its people from harm? If my country isn't willing to put my life before everyone else in the world what's the point? And why are you drawing a line at vaccines? Why isn't Germany or France paying for minimum wage across the world? Why isn't the German army full time engaged in saving people in war-torn countries? Why isn't the E.U. giving free medicine to all people across the world?
I'm all for abolishing nation states. I get it. But let's not sit here and act like the U.S. is some big bad nationalistic monster here when you're just picking an arbitrary (and potentially convenient) line to draw.
> No.
Yes? Has Europe vaccinated all at-risk people and elderly? If not, then staunchly yes they are in fact sacrificing their own. There aren't enough vaccines to go around.
> While the US is busy putting vaccines in stockpile for 16 years olds, other nations' 90 years olds will die.
One could argue that they've lived a good life ya know? In the medical community the elderly are sacrificed to save the young all else being equal. But while the U.S. might be sacrificing 90 year olds in, idk, Thailand, the E.U. is sacrificing 90 year olds in the E.U..
> I imagine you are looking at this from the POV of someone who benefits from this
How could I not be and why would that matter? Your challenge is in the words used in the discussion. A rich person can be right about something even if they're rich.
Personally I have no illusions here. The U.S. is the giant in the room. There was no doubt in my mind that Americans were going to be vaccinated and vaccinated above all others in the world. It's exactly how a nation state operates. I wouldn't expect a nation state to sacrifice its own citizens for others in a scenario like this, though that hasn't always been the case.
Why is China vaccinating 74 million of its own people? Why aren't they sending those vaccines to North Korea or Venezuela? So nationalistic!
> The U.S. is stockpiling them because AstraZeneca might get approval and then they can use them. They are hedging their bets. It's a sensible policy.
Good example of "screw the world" that is quite common there. US is hoarding vaccines it doesn't need right now and the rest of the world (except UK, which has so much common with US that it is almost funny) is vaccinating everyone right away with their vaccines.
I really hope it will be remembered after it is all over.
Good example of "screw the world" that is quite common there. US is hoarding vaccines it doesn't need right now and the rest of the world (except UK, which has so much common with US that it is almost funny) is vaccinating everyone right away with their vaccines.
I really hope it will be remembered after it is all over.
The UK is not hoarding, every vaccine is being used.
The EU so far is doing very little to vaccinate the world, for all its current moralising focus on shipping of a handful of doses to richer countries.
The EU so far is doing very little to vaccinate the world, for all its current moralising focus on shipping of a handful of doses to richer countries.
Countries looking out for themselves in this fashion likely behave shortsightedly. Having Covid ravage e.g. Brazil and in effect use this country as a bioreactor for mutations does put e.g. the US at grave risk.
Now Brazil has other problems than vaccine availability, but the principle of altruism being in the own interest still is valid.
This is a tragedy of the commons that is very tragic indeed. And very little seems to be done to combat the demagogy.
Now Brazil has other problems than vaccine availability, but the principle of altruism being in the own interest still is valid.
This is a tragedy of the commons that is very tragic indeed. And very little seems to be done to combat the demagogy.
So why are doses of AZ vaccine produced in the US not exported despite the fact that AZ vaccine is not approved in the US?
It was an Executive Order that compelled this, not contracts.
Halix is an independent contractor, AZ is not the owner at all.
The Netherlands/EU can ban exports of certain items, they can even nationalize factories if they wanted to.
At this point I think it would be the best that they did, pay AZ/pfizer/moderna royalties but just use the military in a WW2 style effort to produce as many dosages possible.
At this point I think it would be the best that they did, pay AZ/pfizer/moderna royalties but just use the military in a WW2 style effort to produce as many dosages possible.
[deleted]
As a Canadian it's certainly contributing to my goodwill toward the EU. We'd be SOL if they were taking the same approach as the US.
In about 2 months I suspect the US is going to flooding Canada/Mexico with vaccine doses.
Canada will, with luck, already be half done with the first dose in two months. But yes, there's likely to be a surfeit in the entire developed world by July or so. The domestically manufactured Canadian vaccine for example, if approved, will likely end up primarily exported.
I agree, as at that point it will be in their self-interest to do so. So yes, we wouldn't be completely SOL, just in rougher shape than we are.
I certainly understand the desire to keep doses within the country. I don't even necessarily blame the administration for doing so. But I do appreciate the EU giving us the opportunity to vaccinate our seniors prior to 18 year olds in the US.
I certainly understand the desire to keep doses within the country. I don't even necessarily blame the administration for doing so. But I do appreciate the EU giving us the opportunity to vaccinate our seniors prior to 18 year olds in the US.
When you are in a crisis, the first thing you do is put the oxygen mask on yourself. The crisis in the UK and the US has been severe and it does not help to spread the vaccine around peanut butter style across every country in the world such that only 5% of the population has it.
If anything else, we should be focusing it more on single countries impacted the most to get their essential workers and most impacted covered before moving on to a next one.
If anything else, we should be focusing it more on single countries impacted the most to get their essential workers and most impacted covered before moving on to a next one.
Actually, "putting the oxygen mask on yourself" would be the equivalent to vaccinating your medical staff, not your whole friggin country.
The US and UK don't fare much worse than the rest of the EU, per capita, do they?
USA+ UK = 34 million cases, EU=24 million cases.
The biggest problem with vaccine mercantilism is if we don't rationally share the vaccine, the vaccine technology and means of production, then the fact we vaccinated 100% of one country will be useless in 2 years with all the variants mutating in less fortunate countries.
The US and UK don't fare much worse than the rest of the EU, per capita, do they?
USA+ UK = 34 million cases, EU=24 million cases.
The biggest problem with vaccine mercantilism is if we don't rationally share the vaccine, the vaccine technology and means of production, then the fact we vaccinated 100% of one country will be useless in 2 years with all the variants mutating in less fortunate countries.
Somehow, the EU plan to over purchase (which they did already end of 2020, early 2021) and share surplus vaccines withe developing countries to avoid exactly that gets completely ignored.
No, most western countries that bought vaccines “over purchased” for this same reason too. For example the UK has purchased 400M doses so far. This PR piece summarises this objective. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-secures-add...
> we don't rationally share the vaccine,
By the end of 2021, do you really think that'll still be a problem?
Vaccine shortage is a problem right now. But the end of 2021 we'll have vaccines by the billions.
As for the next mutation, we'll likely have the productions capacity. The question becomes if a vaccine can be developed fast?
By the end of 2021, do you really think that'll still be a problem?
Vaccine shortage is a problem right now. But the end of 2021 we'll have vaccines by the billions.
As for the next mutation, we'll likely have the productions capacity. The question becomes if a vaccine can be developed fast?
It certainly helps to vaccinate the most vulnerable people in all countries, instead of vaccinate everyone in certain countries first.
Apparently the rest of the world, in particular many non-western nations, are not being hit as hard by covid as the US. So it makes sense to roll it out as fast as possible where people are getting the most lethal infections.
The US is exporting vaccines (AstraZeneca) to Canada and Mexico.
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-us-to-send-first-va...
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-us-to-send-first-va...
Not "is exporting", but "plans to send", quite different.
Meanwhile EU exported at least 3.9 million doses to Canada, 3.1 million doses to Mexico [1]
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2252
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2252
Yes and AZ vaccine is not even approved in the US...
[deleted]
In France at least I believe there was (and probably still is) also a distribution problem.
Also health authorities flip-flopping on the benefits and side effects is disastrous from an adoption point of view. First it is not efficient for people over 65, then it is, then it will only be distributed to people over 50, then it is dangerous, then it is not dangerous anymore. You couldn't manufacture reluctance to getting vaccinated more if you wanted to.
Also health authorities flip-flopping on the benefits and side effects is disastrous from an adoption point of view. First it is not efficient for people over 65, then it is, then it will only be distributed to people over 50, then it is dangerous, then it is not dangerous anymore. You couldn't manufacture reluctance to getting vaccinated more if you wanted to.
Distribution is OK. The main problem is the availability of the approved vaccine doses. AZ vaccine is easy to move around, at near 0°C.
As for the flip-flopping, it’s the usual media game. High public expectations, low delivery.
What is really annoying is that french pharma has not been able to invent a vaccine or at least able to manufacture someone else’s.
As for the flip-flopping, it’s the usual media game. High public expectations, low delivery.
What is really annoying is that french pharma has not been able to invent a vaccine or at least able to manufacture someone else’s.
The EU didn’t make them, companies with facilities in the EU did. They were exported because the EU managed to delay its procurement process and other countries made their orders earlier.
No country is making vaccines, yet are allowing for their production and exporting. Well, some countries at least, in this case the EU, China, India and Russia so far. The only countries that haven't allowed exports are USA and UK.
The EU could take both the US or the UK route to prevent these exports:
- The EU could rightfully, and has the power to, prevent exports that are essential in a period of crises - which clearly applies to the current situation in Europe. This is the USA route, and it's legitimate.
- The EU can control AZ exports to guarantee they are fulfilling their contractual obligations, which AZ has been literally joking in the face of the EU. This is the UK route, and it's legitimate.
What the media is currently reporting is the second one, the EU is forcing the manufacturer to comply with their contract. If this overlaps with the UK contract, well then that's something I believe the UK must deal with the manufacturer like the EU has been doing for the past 3 months.
I just don't get the double standards, the UK enforcing a contract is good... the EU doing the same is... bad?
The EU could take both the US or the UK route to prevent these exports:
- The EU could rightfully, and has the power to, prevent exports that are essential in a period of crises - which clearly applies to the current situation in Europe. This is the USA route, and it's legitimate.
- The EU can control AZ exports to guarantee they are fulfilling their contractual obligations, which AZ has been literally joking in the face of the EU. This is the UK route, and it's legitimate.
What the media is currently reporting is the second one, the EU is forcing the manufacturer to comply with their contract. If this overlaps with the UK contract, well then that's something I believe the UK must deal with the manufacturer like the EU has been doing for the past 3 months.
I just don't get the double standards, the UK enforcing a contract is good... the EU doing the same is... bad?
> I just don't get the double standards, the UK enforcing a contract is good... the EU doing the same is... bad?
Well, it looks like British tabloids are influencing this point of view in English speaking countries.
Well, it looks like British tabloids are influencing this point of view in English speaking countries.
This is one thing that I've never noticed until the whole vaccine endeavor started, the amount of propaganda British tabloids pump it's mind boggling and quite honestly scary.
They tailor narratives and pump the crap out of it, even if it contains wrong information or if it's things completely irrelevant of what's being discussed but that supports the narrative.
They tailor narratives and pump the crap out of it, even if it contains wrong information or if it's things completely irrelevant of what's being discussed but that supports the narrative.
> The EU can control AZ exports to guarantee they are fulfilling their contractual obligations, which AZ has been literally joking in the face of the EU
Using such executive powers for handling contract dispute is authoritarian move. These powers should be used for impartial regulation of market, not for contract dispute where EC is one side. In liberal democracies, contract disputes even with government are handled by courts.
Using such executive powers for handling contract dispute is authoritarian move. These powers should be used for impartial regulation of market, not for contract dispute where EC is one side. In liberal democracies, contract disputes even with government are handled by courts.
The rules allowing are already done.
The executive implements those rules.
The executive implements those rules.
It's as authoritarian as what the US or UK did, or many other countries when they limited the exports of PPE and some medicines.
Such rules are in an emergency scenario - which the EU currently is in, with third waves all over Europe, and a lot of the vulnerable citizens yet to be vaccinated due to the terrible job AZ has been doing.
If there's a time to trigger these mechanisms is now.
You're just trying to reframe this into a way of controlling the market, which is wrong and biased. This is already beyond a contract dispute, it's about saving lives, and the cost is to make a single pharmaceutical company accountable for their mistakes and their promises.
Just like the UK is doing what it needs to do to have his contract fulfilled to save british lives, by not allowing exports of AZ vaccine by enforcing the contract that's making AZ partially fail the EU contract, the EU will use it's own mechanisms to ensure the safety of EU citizens.
Such rules are in an emergency scenario - which the EU currently is in, with third waves all over Europe, and a lot of the vulnerable citizens yet to be vaccinated due to the terrible job AZ has been doing.
If there's a time to trigger these mechanisms is now.
You're just trying to reframe this into a way of controlling the market, which is wrong and biased. This is already beyond a contract dispute, it's about saving lives, and the cost is to make a single pharmaceutical company accountable for their mistakes and their promises.
Just like the UK is doing what it needs to do to have his contract fulfilled to save british lives, by not allowing exports of AZ vaccine by enforcing the contract that's making AZ partially fail the EU contract, the EU will use it's own mechanisms to ensure the safety of EU citizens.
> Just like the UK is doing what it needs to do to have his contract fulfilled
the UK isn't doing anything special. they just signed a better contract than the other guys.
what the EU should have done is recognised their mistake and fix it via a massive injection of funds. instead they decided to fund the recovery and penny-pinch on the vaccines.
in any case, this whole non-issue is politicising of the lowest degree. the EU will get more vaccines than Africa or Asia as a whole in a few weeks, making this whole discussion moot.
the UK isn't doing anything special. they just signed a better contract than the other guys.
what the EU should have done is recognised their mistake and fix it via a massive injection of funds. instead they decided to fund the recovery and penny-pinch on the vaccines.
in any case, this whole non-issue is politicising of the lowest degree. the EU will get more vaccines than Africa or Asia as a whole in a few weeks, making this whole discussion moot.
>the UK isn't doing anything special. they just signed a better contract than the other guys.
This is yet another one of those narratives pumped by British media: "the better contract". This is meaningless, because AZ still signed a contract with the EU that clearly states that no other commitment should overlap with such contract. So they are either forcefully or willingly choosing to fulfill some contracts over others - none of those reasons is an excuse. That's AZ problem, not EU problem.
In case you didn't notice it's only working for vaccines made in the UK (which according to AZ CEO the UK didn't allow any exports of that production).
Basically the UK is enforcing the company to fulfill their contractual obligations, where they have power to enforce it, which is in the UK, and that's fine.
But you can't expect other countries not to do the exact same thing - which is what the EU is doing. And now Boris is lobbying around to try to stop this, and of course the short-sighted vaccine nationalism of not allowing the company to fulfill other contracts came around to slap him in the face.
There's no goodwill towards Boris government, and now they want to make a deal with no leverage, after months of bashing the EU for trusting a free market and a private company while the UK hoarded the full local production without any transparency (yes those records are private for "security reasons").
Good luck with that.
This is yet another one of those narratives pumped by British media: "the better contract". This is meaningless, because AZ still signed a contract with the EU that clearly states that no other commitment should overlap with such contract. So they are either forcefully or willingly choosing to fulfill some contracts over others - none of those reasons is an excuse. That's AZ problem, not EU problem.
In case you didn't notice it's only working for vaccines made in the UK (which according to AZ CEO the UK didn't allow any exports of that production).
Basically the UK is enforcing the company to fulfill their contractual obligations, where they have power to enforce it, which is in the UK, and that's fine.
But you can't expect other countries not to do the exact same thing - which is what the EU is doing. And now Boris is lobbying around to try to stop this, and of course the short-sighted vaccine nationalism of not allowing the company to fulfill other contracts came around to slap him in the face.
There's no goodwill towards Boris government, and now they want to make a deal with no leverage, after months of bashing the EU for trusting a free market and a private company while the UK hoarded the full local production without any transparency (yes those records are private for "security reasons").
Good luck with that.
> The EU didn’t make them, companies with facilities in the EU did.
If you want to play this game, then companies didn't but EU citizens that work at those factories did create them.
If you want to play this game, then companies didn't but EU citizens that work at those factories did create them.
...and because politicians in the EU told citizens it might be dangerous. Fine, believe all the conspiracy theories about the UK stealing vaccines...the EU has literally millions of doses sitting around going unused because citizens won't take it (it is almost verging on mania: in Germany I have heard that 50% of health workers at some hospitals who had the vaccination are calling in sick after getting the vaccine).
I am not sure why there is even a discussion on these points: the EU was late, and once they were late they did almost everything wrong (unsurprisingly, countries in Europe have a terrible record on vaccines)...that is it.
I am not sure why there is even a discussion on these points: the EU was late, and once they were late they did almost everything wrong (unsurprisingly, countries in Europe have a terrible record on vaccines)...that is it.
> the EU has literally millions of doses sitting around going unused because citizens won't take it
This is utterly false. The vaccine is being used as quickly as it comes in. As of yesterday, more than 75% of all doses delivered to Germany have been administered. (Source: https://impfdashboard.de/) this includes the slow-down from temporarily halting the use of AstraZeneca.
This is utterly false. The vaccine is being used as quickly as it comes in. As of yesterday, more than 75% of all doses delivered to Germany have been administered. (Source: https://impfdashboard.de/) this includes the slow-down from temporarily halting the use of AstraZeneca.
Just 75%...wow...so low. The UK is doing close to 1m/day. Germany has what, ~1.4m that aren't being used. Amazing that people accept it.
Unfortunately I couldn‘t find a source for how many doses have been delivered to the UK so it‘s hard to draw a comparison.
While the UK is vaccination their population at 3.5x the rate of Germany, the majority of that is due to the lack of supplies. If Germany was vaccinating at a rate of 750k/day, ever dose would be applied in 5 days. Considering big deliveries only happen ~1/week this is neither feasible nor desirable.
While the UK is vaccination their population at 3.5x the rate of Germany, the majority of that is due to the lack of supplies. If Germany was vaccinating at a rate of 750k/day, ever dose would be applied in 5 days. Considering big deliveries only happen ~1/week this is neither feasible nor desirable.
They are keeping some as a reserve to deliver the second dose according to the recommended regimen since they cannot rely on the manufacturer sticking to the negotiated shipment rates.
Germany doesn't have an idea of how much will be delivered, so that is a lame excuse. Germany insists on administering the second shot after three weeks, and also inists on keeping the doses for a lot of these shots in stock until then. That costs time.
Germany doesn't have an idea of how much will be delivered, so that is a lame excuse.
Seems to me like being able to rely on the delivery schedule would be a prerequisite for not holding back doses. I thought this was stupid at first, but that was giving AZ the benefit of the doubt, which they have now repeatedly shown is unwise. You can't have just-in-time delivery with a partner as unreliable as AZ. Maybe this will change in a few months, or maybe at that point they'll decide to sell to someone else instead, who knows.
Germany insists on administering the second shot after three weeks
Did you mean months? Because I know first hand that at least one region administers the second shot three months after the first one, as in: I handled the appointment, and I wasn't given a choice in the length of time between shots. So three weeks is just false. As far as I know that's the recommendation everywhere in Germany.
Seems to me like being able to rely on the delivery schedule would be a prerequisite for not holding back doses. I thought this was stupid at first, but that was giving AZ the benefit of the doubt, which they have now repeatedly shown is unwise. You can't have just-in-time delivery with a partner as unreliable as AZ. Maybe this will change in a few months, or maybe at that point they'll decide to sell to someone else instead, who knows.
Germany insists on administering the second shot after three weeks
Did you mean months? Because I know first hand that at least one region administers the second shot three months after the first one, as in: I handled the appointment, and I wasn't given a choice in the length of time between shots. So three weeks is just false. As far as I know that's the recommendation everywhere in Germany.
Welcome to German federalism, everbody is doing what he wants. Were I live, it is three weeks.
Regarding delivery schedules, one core function of supply chain management is following up with suppliers on these. And coordinate that with everyone else, e.g. vaccination centers. Blindly relying on whatever the supplier says, in AZs case months ago, doesn't work.
Regarding delivery schedules, one core function of supply chain management is following up with suppliers on these. And coordinate that with everyone else, e.g. vaccination centers. Blindly relying on whatever the supplier says, in AZs case months ago, doesn't work.
Were I live, it is three weeks.
I find that hard to believe as the minimum interval that's approved by European and German regulators is 4 weeks for AZ. The recommended interval in Germany is 12 weeks. Maybe you are thinking of Biontech, where 3 weeks is the minimum approved interval.
https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/COVID-Impfen/gesamt.html
I find that hard to believe as the minimum interval that's approved by European and German regulators is 4 weeks for AZ. The recommended interval in Germany is 12 weeks. Maybe you are thinking of Biontech, where 3 weeks is the minimum approved interval.
https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/COVID-Impfen/gesamt.html
also AstraZeneca failed to deliver to EU in a big way. 70% less than agreed!!! at the same time AZ exported vaccines from EU. i hope EU will take legal action against AZ
i hope EU will take legal action against AZ
The APA explicitly states that the EU side waives any claim against AZ arising from delays in delivery of the vaccine. What legal action do you think the EU can or should take, and why?
The APA explicitly states that the EU side waives any claim against AZ arising from delays in delivery of the vaccine. What legal action do you think the EU can or should take, and why?
Especially if the delay is caused by additional orders from the EU.
It seems they are starting legal actions: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2BA1CF
Not quite. They are starting the prescribed dispute resolution process, as set out in the agreement. If that fails, they would still have to take AZ to court, and presumably then the restrictions on claims also set out in the agreement would apply.
What's interesting about this comment is that it demonstrates the core sources of sclerosis in the EMU. Instead of engaging in a careful investigation to identify roadblocks to the rollout, removing said roadblocks, and then engaging in some soul-searching as to why these roadblocks are there, one immediately starts denouncing their favorite villains, blaming them and while at the same time indulging in fantasies of moral superiority to compensate for one's failures.
"Yes, comrade, we have no toilet-paper, but we do not exploit toiler-paper workers!"
It's obvious why this type of casuistry is so appealing to the powerless, but what's scary is when those in leadership become slaves of the same memes - that's when you know that things will only get much, much worse - as owning your failures is a pre-requisite to learning from them, which is a pre-requisite for effective reform. The EU is a system to grow bureaucracy but reform is effectively blocked by the moralizers. Thus, things will continue to get worse until the all the sanctimonious people are kicked out of office or until the society itself collapses under the massive weight of moralistic bureaucrats.
"Yes, comrade, we have no toilet-paper, but we do not exploit toiler-paper workers!"
It's obvious why this type of casuistry is so appealing to the powerless, but what's scary is when those in leadership become slaves of the same memes - that's when you know that things will only get much, much worse - as owning your failures is a pre-requisite to learning from them, which is a pre-requisite for effective reform. The EU is a system to grow bureaucracy but reform is effectively blocked by the moralizers. Thus, things will continue to get worse until the all the sanctimonious people are kicked out of office or until the society itself collapses under the massive weight of moralistic bureaucrats.
The EU started this particular game of iterative prisoner's dilemma with the assumption of cooperation. That trust in was betrayed in the first round, and now we're seeing the reaction.
Considering the supply chains cross many borders, there is a good chance this will now escalate further, and total production capacity may well be harmed as a result, which is exactly why cooperation was the first choice. It may have been naive in a practical sense to assume that Johnson and, at the time, Trump would be capable of thinking two steps ahead. But getting burned on an assumption of good faith isn't exactly the worst thing in the world.
Plus, once the US, UK, and Israel are done, and with more capacity coming on-line, the spigot will turn to the EU and the difference may end up being far smaller than one might think from just extrapolating current data.
And the Pfizer production relies on Lipids that are produced in the UK, along with other products produced elsewhere.
Moderna is made in Switzerland and then goes to Spain for finishing does that make it an EU or Swiss export?
We all need to cooperate to succeed.
Given the relative country sizes it's weird that the EU seems to have comparatively less vaccine production
And if the EU really wants to 'put the issue to bed' why don't they just publish the export numbers but vaccine type and country?
Moderna is made in Switzerland and then goes to Spain for finishing does that make it an EU or Swiss export?
We all need to cooperate to succeed.
Given the relative country sizes it's weird that the EU seems to have comparatively less vaccine production
And if the EU really wants to 'put the issue to bed' why don't they just publish the export numbers but vaccine type and country?
>"Meanwhile, the UK and US do not export any vaccines at all."
This is untrue. The US in the process of exporting 4 million doses of vaccine between Mexico and Canada[1].
The US has also said that once they have ensured that there is enough vaccine supply for all Americans(likely around May 1st)it will begin exporting any surplus in the summer.[2] The US has not met that target of enough vaccines for its population.
The reality is that US and EU took very different approaches towards vaccine procurement. The US government acted more like an investor and threw insane sums of cash at the drugmakers with very few strings attached and the EU sought lower prices and higher accountability for drug makers. There were very different risk profiles between the two. In the end the EU placed their orders months after the US, the UK and Israel. Ursula von der Leyen seems quite content to shift the blame everywhere else and propagate the view that the EU is being taken advantage of.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-us-to-send-first-va...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/biden-moves-up-vaccine-tim...
This is untrue. The US in the process of exporting 4 million doses of vaccine between Mexico and Canada[1].
The US has also said that once they have ensured that there is enough vaccine supply for all Americans(likely around May 1st)it will begin exporting any surplus in the summer.[2] The US has not met that target of enough vaccines for its population.
The reality is that US and EU took very different approaches towards vaccine procurement. The US government acted more like an investor and threw insane sums of cash at the drugmakers with very few strings attached and the EU sought lower prices and higher accountability for drug makers. There were very different risk profiles between the two. In the end the EU placed their orders months after the US, the UK and Israel. Ursula von der Leyen seems quite content to shift the blame everywhere else and propagate the view that the EU is being taken advantage of.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-us-to-send-first-va...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/biden-moves-up-vaccine-tim...
My bad, I didn't realise the EU was already a socialist dystopia which owned what is produced by their private citizens.
The EU bureaucrats were simply worse at negotiating contracts and doing their job.
The EU bureaucrats were simply worse at negotiating contracts and doing their job.
The UK is exporting vaccine components to the EU though.
source?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14400027/pfizer-warns-eu-threa...
Block AZ in the EU, you'll force the populist Johnson into tit-for-tat retaliation - and we'll all go to hell in a hand-cart.
Block AZ in the EU, you'll force the populist Johnson into tit-for-tat retaliation - and we'll all go to hell in a hand-cart.
the sun LMAO, stop reading British tabloids
You don't think Croda are important then?
Or that this deal doesn't exist? https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/croda-covid-va...
Or that this deal doesn't exist? https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/croda-covid-va...
This has been debunked, it's just rumors with no support, both Pfizer and BioNTech secured critical supplies in the beginning of the year for EU production - internally in Europe (2 German companies if I recall correctly), from Canada, and from the UK.
At best banning those exports would just harm the production of surplus vaccines/exports. It would be the UK crippling their own supply of vaccines - which they have received 10 million so far from Pfizer made in Belgium.
At best banning those exports would just harm the production of surplus vaccines/exports. It would be the UK crippling their own supply of vaccines - which they have received 10 million so far from Pfizer made in Belgium.
I agree such a move would be somewhat self destructive. But given the uk is already >50% with a 1st dose, and has Moderna contracts supplying from next month, I would not rule it out.
I also would point out: Boris, aka mini-trump. Populists would not let such a challenge go without reply.
Good luck if you think the report is completely wrong.
I also would point out: Boris, aka mini-trump. Populists would not let such a challenge go without reply.
Good luck if you think the report is completely wrong.
I don't think it needs to be completely wrong, it could simply be someone internally in Pfizer venting off that if the UK would cut that supply it would hurt Pfizer operational results predictions, or simply that it would be noticed in their production, or it's just someone answering "yes" to the questions: "would this be bad for pfizer/vaccines".
Also the frame wouldn't make any sense:
The EU will be controlling exports of AZ vaccine to enforce a company fulfill their contractual obligations (which they have failed completely, several times), and the UK would stop exporting a component for Pfizer? For what? To let it spoil and ruin a UK business that invested and ramped up production to have their production stalled? To hurt their own vaccine supply?
I really don't see it.
Also the frame wouldn't make any sense:
The EU will be controlling exports of AZ vaccine to enforce a company fulfill their contractual obligations (which they have failed completely, several times), and the UK would stop exporting a component for Pfizer? For what? To let it spoil and ruin a UK business that invested and ramped up production to have their production stalled? To hurt their own vaccine supply?
I really don't see it.
It's not a rumour, Pfizer said it: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/half-uk-adults-receive-fir...
I'm sure they are not completely dependent on UK supplies, but by the sounds of it, it will cause them some issues.
Either way, I very much doubt that's a card that UK wish to play.
I'm sure they are not completely dependent on UK supplies, but by the sounds of it, it will cause them some issues.
Either way, I very much doubt that's a card that UK wish to play.
From the original source:
>The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine recently announced contracts with the Germany-based companies Evonik and Merck KGaA to dramatically scale up the supply of lipids.
>However, in a recent conference call with industry leaders and German politicians including Angela Merkel, the chancellor, Sierk Poetting, the BioNTech chief operating officer, warned that lipids supply remained the key bottleneck facing production of the Pfizer vaccine and said it would take up to eight months to boost production.
Basically the UK would be hurting mostly themselves.
>The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine recently announced contracts with the Germany-based companies Evonik and Merck KGaA to dramatically scale up the supply of lipids.
>However, in a recent conference call with industry leaders and German politicians including Angela Merkel, the chancellor, Sierk Poetting, the BioNTech chief operating officer, warned that lipids supply remained the key bottleneck facing production of the Pfizer vaccine and said it would take up to eight months to boost production.
Basically the UK would be hurting mostly themselves.
> Those EU facilities are in turn dependent on vaccine inputs — such as the lipid nanoparticles needed in mRNA vaccines and the plastic bags used in bioreactors — some of which are imported from the UK and the US. [0]
(I believe that some UK companies supply the lipids)
[0] https://www.ft.com/content/773245da-900a-468e-aaf3-96ec8c433...
(I believe that some UK companies supply the lipids)
[0] https://www.ft.com/content/773245da-900a-468e-aaf3-96ec8c433...
I expect this whole thing will result in the EU getting a similar law as the US and less cooperation.
The EU has exported 41 millionen vaccine doses of which the UK has gotten 8 million so far
Not “the EU”. Private companies with factories in European countries fulfilled pre-orders placed and paid for months ago. “The EU” owns no factories and produces no vaccines itself.
Not “the EU”. Private companies with factories in European countries fulfilled pre-orders placed and paid for months ago. “The EU” owns no factories and produces no vaccines itself.
> the EU is trying to be good and is sharing its vaccinations more or less fairly with other countries (for now)
What's fair about it? The number of exported vaccines would account for only 10% of EU population, by your own admission. Since the poor countries in need of vaccine are from Africa and Asia (mostly), they most definitely have much greater populations. What's fair about exporting just 10% of vaccines?
What's fair about it? The number of exported vaccines would account for only 10% of EU population, by your own admission. Since the poor countries in need of vaccine are from Africa and Asia (mostly), they most definitely have much greater populations. What's fair about exporting just 10% of vaccines?
Export? USA and UK bought those vaccines a year ago from Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and AstraZeneca. Warp Speed, USA gambled and the world is better because of it.
They are contracts and dates on which x million doses are to be delivered by. Why didn't EU do the same? Crying now it's too late and a trade war can go both ways. Say, no vaccine would be produced unless a certain item that is produced in USA goes to a Belgium factory.
They are contracts and dates on which x million doses are to be delivered by. Why didn't EU do the same? Crying now it's too late and a trade war can go both ways. Say, no vaccine would be produced unless a certain item that is produced in USA goes to a Belgium factory.
The USA negociated more slowly than the EU. The UK signed a research deal before the EU but didn't order until a week later.
The only difference is that the EU remained truthful to the free market while both the USA and the UK put country first closes.
> Crying now it's too late and a trade war can go both ways.
There are no trade wars. Both the USA and the UK have shown themselves to be extremely unreliable partners which will not respect the rules they profess to believe in as soon as it doesn't favor them. That was already obvious with Trump and is only more obvious now.
I fully expect the USA to lose its place as the main global power in the next decade if not sooner. The UK will probably pay the price a lot sooner as the EU is not going to forget and they have no other reliable ally.
The only difference is that the EU remained truthful to the free market while both the USA and the UK put country first closes.
> Crying now it's too late and a trade war can go both ways.
There are no trade wars. Both the USA and the UK have shown themselves to be extremely unreliable partners which will not respect the rules they profess to believe in as soon as it doesn't favor them. That was already obvious with Trump and is only more obvious now.
I fully expect the USA to lose its place as the main global power in the next decade if not sooner. The UK will probably pay the price a lot sooner as the EU is not going to forget and they have no other reliable ally.
> The USA negociated more slowly than the EU.
The US signed their AZ deal months before the EU and UK. They threw billions of dollars at every company they could find, readily paying high rates while other countries tried to negotiate lower ones. So I'm really not sure where this idea of yours comes from.
$1.2 Billion to AZ in May: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/05/21/trump-administrati...
EU's deal was signed in August: https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/az-nets-396m-down...
$1.95 Billion to Pfizer in July: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/health/was-the-pfizer-vac...
EU's deal with Pfizer was in November: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
The US signed their AZ deal months before the EU and UK. They threw billions of dollars at every company they could find, readily paying high rates while other countries tried to negotiate lower ones. So I'm really not sure where this idea of yours comes from.
$1.2 Billion to AZ in May: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/05/21/trump-administrati...
EU's deal was signed in August: https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/az-nets-396m-down...
$1.95 Billion to Pfizer in July: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/health/was-the-pfizer-vac...
EU's deal with Pfizer was in November: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Minor nitpick but the UK signed a deal with AZ a couple of days before the US, it was the EU that was 3 months late to the party.
Clicking through your second link you get to the article about the US deal on the 21st of May: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-scores-1b-fr...
and again for the UK deal on the 17th of May: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/after-signing-up-to-deli...
Clicking through your second link you get to the article about the US deal on the 21st of May: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-scores-1b-fr...
and again for the UK deal on the 17th of May: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/after-signing-up-to-deli...
Didn't Italy just recently tried to block exports to Australia?
OK, show me a press release mentioning orders, contracts.
"The EU reached a deal with Pfizer in November for 300 million doses and in January negotiated a preliminary deal for another 300 million." https://www.dw.com/en/eu-orders-300-million-more-biontech-pf...
USA agreed to buy 100-500 Million in JULY 2020 https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/22/health/pfizer-covid-19-va...
The fact is that EU is too slow, too risk adverse and 28 countries must agree. In USA the President winks, and it's done. (In this case it was beneficial.)
"The EU reached a deal with Pfizer in November for 300 million doses and in January negotiated a preliminary deal for another 300 million." https://www.dw.com/en/eu-orders-300-million-more-biontech-pf...
USA agreed to buy 100-500 Million in JULY 2020 https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/22/health/pfizer-covid-19-va...
The fact is that EU is too slow, too risk adverse and 28 countries must agree. In USA the President winks, and it's done. (In this case it was beneficial.)
> The fact is that EU is too slow, too risk adverse and 28 countries must agree.
Not strictly true, as for these purposes the UK was still bound by EU rules until Jan 1st this year and did its own thing for the vaccinations without breaking those rules.
The EU nations generally like to work together and negotiate as one, as doing so saves money; money was the wrong thing to optimise for in this case.
Not strictly true, as for these purposes the UK was still bound by EU rules until Jan 1st this year and did its own thing for the vaccinations without breaking those rules.
The EU nations generally like to work together and negotiate as one, as doing so saves money; money was the wrong thing to optimise for in this case.
> The EU nations generally like to work together and negotiate as one, as doing so saves money; money was the wrong thing to optimise for in this case.
Right. Probably should have optimized for human life. Hindsight is 20/20.
Right. Probably should have optimized for human life. Hindsight is 20/20.
Optimizing for human life would have meant spending a potentially unlimited amount of money. Maybe a few EU countries would be happy with that trade off, but the poorer countries wouldn't have been able to afford it.
The EU was in the difficult position, as either the eurosceptics in the poor countries would complain that the EU was throwing them to the wolves, or the eurosceptics in the rich countries would complain that they were having to subsidise the poor countries who refused to pay the full amount.
When faced with a global pandemic, vaccinating just your own country while your neighbours become a breeding ground for new variants isn't really solving the problem, especially if your neighbours are closely integrated with you and citizens have freedom of movement across borders. This is why we can't have nice things.
The EU was in the difficult position, as either the eurosceptics in the poor countries would complain that the EU was throwing them to the wolves, or the eurosceptics in the rich countries would complain that they were having to subsidise the poor countries who refused to pay the full amount.
When faced with a global pandemic, vaccinating just your own country while your neighbours become a breeding ground for new variants isn't really solving the problem, especially if your neighbours are closely integrated with you and citizens have freedom of movement across borders. This is why we can't have nice things.
Nah, I think this is a case of hindsight 20/20 — If they’d optimised for reaching a decision quickly rather than cost, that would’ve been better. Not the only mistake by the EU nations despite the lower average death count/capita than the UK, but certainly an embarrassing one.
I'm not sure that optimising for "reaching a decision quickly" is really a valid strategy here. To do that, you'd basically turn the first rule of improv into a constitutional principle and always say "Yes" to any binary decision.
If what you mean is "reaching the correct decision quickly" then that sounds like it's begging the question, because correctness is subjective and it has to be optimised relative to certain other criteria than just speed.
I agree with you, though, that it is definitely worth looking at death count per capita (of different jurisdictions) and compare that with the costs of vaccination programs and lockdowns. Those won't be easy calculations to make, but after keeping epidemiologists and economists busy for the rest of the decade we may eventually learn some fascinating lessons from all this.
If what you mean is "reaching the correct decision quickly" then that sounds like it's begging the question, because correctness is subjective and it has to be optimised relative to certain other criteria than just speed.
I agree with you, though, that it is definitely worth looking at death count per capita (of different jurisdictions) and compare that with the costs of vaccination programs and lockdowns. Those won't be easy calculations to make, but after keeping epidemiologists and economists busy for the rest of the decade we may eventually learn some fascinating lessons from all this.
Au contraire.
This way of looking at things ignores the astonishing cost of maintaining emergency support payments to people and businesses, which are significantly more expensive than the price differential on vaccines. Ireland's spending over a million euro per hour on that and will now be forced to do so for thousands of additional hours.
This way of looking at things ignores the astonishing cost of maintaining emergency support payments to people and businesses, which are significantly more expensive than the price differential on vaccines. Ireland's spending over a million euro per hour on that and will now be forced to do so for thousands of additional hours.
I’m not claiming they were successful in lowering costs, just that their approach fits the hypothesis that that was their intent. “Penny wise, pound foolish” as the saying in my home country goes.
How did the UK govt (not the private Swedish-British company AstraZeneca) show itself to be an unreliable partner? Be as specific as possible.
I want to get your view and if I think it’s valid, I want to pass it onto my MP, to put democratic pressure for the UK to maintain its status of a rules-based society.
I want to get your view and if I think it’s valid, I want to pass it onto my MP, to put democratic pressure for the UK to maintain its status of a rules-based society.
> There are no trade wars.
There are trade wars, and there will continue to be.
> Both the USA and the UK have shown themselves to be extremely unreliable partners which will not respect the rules they profess to believe in as soon as it doesn't favor them.
That's rich coming from the folks responsible for GDPR. You pollute our web, and then cry about things that don't favor you? Boo-hoo.
There are trade wars, and there will continue to be.
> Both the USA and the UK have shown themselves to be extremely unreliable partners which will not respect the rules they profess to believe in as soon as it doesn't favor them.
That's rich coming from the folks responsible for GDPR. You pollute our web, and then cry about things that don't favor you? Boo-hoo.
The web was already polluted. GDPR only removed the facade and now you see the ugliness that was behind it.
[deleted]
GDPR has added unsightly boilerplate to our shared web experience. You've only succeeded in expanding our attack surface.
[deleted]
> Why didn't EU do the same?
Germany gave BioNTech 445M. The US didn't give Pfizer/BioNTech anything.
Germany gave BioNTech 445M. The US didn't give Pfizer/BioNTech anything.
The US did, actually, by placing a firm order for vaccines.
So did many other countries. The US is getting those doses faster by preventing the Pfizer factories in the US from exporting any doses, so they have no choice but to sell all of that supply to the US. That's why Canada is getting all of the Pfizer/BioNTech doses it purchased from the Belgium factory rather than one right across the border in the US.
> The US is getting those doses faster by preventing the Pfizer factories in the US from exporting any doses
With democrat president? Who would have thought.
With democrat president? Who would have thought.
The order was far from firm, Pfizer would have gotten $0 from the order if the vaccine didn't pass trials.
Far from firm? If I sign a contract to buy apples from you 6 months from now, but you show up with apple seeds, was my order not firm if I don't pay you?
The fact is when Pfizer showed up with a vaccine, they knew they could sell $2 billion to the US and would have legal recourse if the US government didn't pay. That's as firm as it gets.
The fact is when Pfizer showed up with a vaccine, they knew they could sell $2 billion to the US and would have legal recourse if the US government didn't pay. That's as firm as it gets.
The participants in operation warp speed get paid whether or not their vaccine makes it through trials.
To use your analogy, farmers can sign contracts for "all the apples that's produced this year" if they want to offload the risk of crop failure rather than a contract for a specific number of apples.
To use your analogy, farmers can sign contracts for "all the apples that's produced this year" if they want to offload the risk of crop failure rather than a contract for a specific number of apples.
A `firm order` is a business term to mean an order which is non-cancelable. It would be correct to say Pfizer was only tangentially connected to Warp Speed as Warp Speed money was used to place the firm order of $2 billion doses with Pfizer.
Pfizer knew for a fact, even if COVID was miraculously cured, or it turned out there was a super cheap treatment, or anything that made their vaccine worthless, they could still sell $2 billion units to the US.
Pfizer knew for a fact, even if COVID was miraculously cured, or it turned out there was a super cheap treatment, or anything that made their vaccine worthless, they could still sell $2 billion units to the US.
The EU did the same and they were also the ones funding the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine.
But I agree with your other comment about the US. The EU should have done the same. Restrict all exports to other countries until x million is delivered domestically.
The EU did sign contracts. Unfortunately AstraZeneca is not going to be able to fulfill the contract, only delivering 30m out of 80m doses in Q1, with an even bigger shortfall expected for Q2.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897665864830978
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897665864830978
But since they were so late in getting that contract signed AZ were only able to promise a best effort at delivery.
True, the EU even waived its right to sue because delivery delays.
"And as POLITICO reported last week, the non-redacted version of the contract shows that the EU also waived its right to sue AstraZeneca in the event of delivery delays."
Quote from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
"And as POLITICO reported last week, the non-redacted version of the contract shows that the EU also waived its right to sue AstraZeneca in the event of delivery delays."
Quote from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
This seems to be false: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2BA1CF
UK contract is also on a “best effort” basis.
They signed 1 dey before the UK, which also got a 'best effort' contract.
Again: No, the UK had a binding contract with AZ since May already.
"However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said."
Quote is from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
"However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said."
Quote is from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
Again: Soriot is lying. This link says the UK signed in june : https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-inno...
Except it didn't, the UK signed in august.
The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines, except Italy blocked an export to Australia a couple of weeks ago.
Except it didn't, the UK signed in august.
The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines, except Italy blocked an export to Australia a couple of weeks ago.
No, I've already posted the article that states that the UK signed the contract with AZ in May. There are also other news articles from May 2020 (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/18/coronavirus-astrazeneca-aims...) that prove that the UK already ordered back then.
That's why it was considered "news" when it was reported that one particular contract was signed by the UK one day after the EU. But that's not the full story, since the UK had binding contracts with AZ well before that.
"The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines, except Italy blocked an export to Australia a couple of weeks ago." I haven't seen that claim in the article you linked.
That's why it was considered "news" when it was reported that one particular contract was signed by the UK one day after the EU. But that's not the full story, since the UK had binding contracts with AZ well before that.
"The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines, except Italy blocked an export to Australia a couple of weeks ago." I haven't seen that claim in the article you linked.
"He also denied suggestions that AstraZeneca might be selling vaccine doses manufactured in the EU to other parts of the world in order to make a bigger profit."
IMHO that sentence doesn't prove your point that "The link also says they wouldn't export EU manufactured vaccines".
AZ is selling at cost, so they are not making a profit from the vaccine atm. So that statement should be trivially true.
AZ is selling at cost, so they are not making a profit from the vaccine atm. So that statement should be trivially true.
If they are actually selling at cost [citation needed], why would they ship to Australia with undoubtedly higher transport costs?
It is well known that AZ sells the vaccine at cost. E.g. "... is being offered by the drugmaker at cost during the pandemic and at no profit in perpetuity for low-income countries." [1] That's because the vaccine was developed by the Oxford university and Oxford made this a condition. If AZ makes a profit from the vaccine during the pandemic they would break the contract with Oxford.
It seems the cost price differs from country to country because of different production costs and other factors (maybe shipping).
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/astrazeneca-vaccine-cost-hig...
It seems the cost price differs from country to country because of different production costs and other factors (maybe shipping).
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/astrazeneca-vaccine-cost-hig...
[deleted]
Your link doesn't say anything about signing contracts.
And press releases saying they are ready to go don't count as signing contracts.
All your links are rooted in AZ press releases, which means nothing.
And press releases saying they are ready to go don't count as signing contracts.
All your links are rooted in AZ press releases, which means nothing.
That article was clearly published in May 2020, I don't assume AZ sneaked that article in. Are you really saying that AZ was faking the press release in May 2020, so that in 2021 they could claim that the UK signed the contract three months before the EU?
Your article from may doesn't say anything about signing contracts, only that they are ready to go.
I've seen the articles mention may, june and august as signing dates of the contract, so clearly there is some 'miscommunication'. And both the may and june date originates from AZ, while the actual date turns out to be august.
I've seen the articles mention may, june and august as signing dates of the contract, so clearly there is some 'miscommunication'. And both the may and june date originates from AZ, while the actual date turns out to be august.
There are plenty of articles from May 2020 that all discuss in various words that a deal was struck. If you believe that AZ didn't sign a contract with the UK before Aug 28 then the burden is on you to prove that.
Have you got a source for this? Would really appreciate it.
https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-inno...
Here’s the CEO of AZ explaining why the three month extra time was important.
Here’s the CEO of AZ explaining why the three month extra time was important.
The other comment in this chain has the following statement in the link posted:
> The UK signed off its deal with AstraZeneca in June 2020, three months before the EU did
So I’m not sure what to believe.
> The UK signed off its deal with AstraZeneca in June 2020, three months before the EU did
So I’m not sure what to believe.
One is from independent researchers, the other one is from AZ press persons.Take your pick.
[deleted]
Three months before.
what's the point of a contract that's not enforceable? if EU has to resort to export bans after the fact, sounds like someone somewhere didn't do basic due diligence. companies aren't going to deliver just out of the goodness of their hearts.
> what's the point of a contract that's not enforceable?
That's why the USA didn't bother ordering rapidely. They knew they could use the defense act and executive orders to block exports and they did as soon as they could. Even Canada is buying vaccines in Belgium.
The UK was wise. They prevented Oxford associating with Merks and forced them to partner with AstraZeneca. That's the key take away from the pfizer debacle and the Nordstream interferences. Europe needs to strike American companies hard and push them out of the European market as fast as possible. The USA is not our ally.
That's why the USA didn't bother ordering rapidely. They knew they could use the defense act and executive orders to block exports and they did as soon as they could. Even Canada is buying vaccines in Belgium.
The UK was wise. They prevented Oxford associating with Merks and forced them to partner with AstraZeneca. That's the key take away from the pfizer debacle and the Nordstream interferences. Europe needs to strike American companies hard and push them out of the European market as fast as possible. The USA is not our ally.
That’s absurd. On the contrary, we should work closer with our ally USA, increase trade and more cooperation. We should completely decouple from China and stop trade from there, and restart domestic manufacturing.
To do that, we would need to trust the USA to have our shared best interest in mind. I don't have that. The EU is notoriously bad in protecting their self-interest, the US is notoriously good at that.
I want to the EU to be a close ally to the US, but it is not the EU who is the problem here.
I want to the EU to be a close ally to the US, but it is not the EU who is the problem here.
Doesn't Germany have a lot of manufacturing? I thought it was what they were known for.
China's final assembly companies are not the only kind of manufacturing and not the most worthwhile part of it, although Shenzhen is certainly good at electronics.
China's final assembly companies are not the only kind of manufacturing and not the most worthwhile part of it, although Shenzhen is certainly good at electronics.
Thanks for linking to this thread, it was insightful.
AstraZeneca also exported EU stockpiles to the UK leading to this shortfall.
The EU also hadn't approved the vaccine when those stockpiles were exported, and it was to compensate for UK domestic production shortfalls which the EU suffered from a few months later due in large part to the Commission delaying the contract. The UK got precedence because they were first in line and the EU couldn't yet use the vaccines.
Those were stockpiled for the EU. Meanwhile also the US has a stockpile of AstraZeneca vaccines, but none were exported.
Apparently not many doses have been exported from Halix in NL, and they have a stockpile of doses
A ton got exported in early January, although precise numbers don't seem to be public.
Wonder where they went…
Based on this report (which is somewhat anecdotal), the EU exported ~10m vaccine doses to the UK - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-18/europe-wi...
The majority of these doses will be Pfizer, as there's no production in the UK and the UK's MHRA reported ~10m people had a first Pfizer dose by end of Feb
Everyone I know (me included) is currently being given AZ vaccine and I presume the Pfizer is being retained for second shots for those who've already had it.
Of course there's politics in play, as well as the challenges of scaling up vaccine production but IMV biggest thing Britain could do is give enough Ireland enough doses to speedup the vaccination of their population
Based on this report (which is somewhat anecdotal), the EU exported ~10m vaccine doses to the UK - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-18/europe-wi...
The majority of these doses will be Pfizer, as there's no production in the UK and the UK's MHRA reported ~10m people had a first Pfizer dose by end of Feb
Everyone I know (me included) is currently being given AZ vaccine and I presume the Pfizer is being retained for second shots for those who've already had it.
Of course there's politics in play, as well as the challenges of scaling up vaccine production but IMV biggest thing Britain could do is give enough Ireland enough doses to speedup the vaccination of their population
I honestly think no one wanted to sign with the Trump admin. Remember, when the vaccines were being developed and worked on everyone was complaining about Trump rushing the vaccines and how they weren't going to be safe nor effective. If the EU signed on early they would be giving approval to Trump before the results were in.
The EU has received more than 62 million doses (of all vaccines) and has more than 10 million doses in stock.
They've also created problems to the AZ vaccine at every turn. So much so that now some people simply refuse it.
So if they hadn't shipped 8 million doses to the UK (where that vaccine was developed with public funds) there is no guarantee at all that they would have vaccinated 8 million more people.
Edit with non-UK source (as of 2 weeks ago):
"Millions of Vaccines in EU Unused (March 11, 10:00 a.m. ET) More than 11.5 million Covid vaccine doses that have been delivered to European Union countries have not yet been used, according to Bloomberg. The number of shots sent by manufacturers now totals 54.2 million, compared to 46 million a week previously. The data covers the week to March 7. [1]
[1] https://www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/31024-coronavirus-...
They've also created problems to the AZ vaccine at every turn. So much so that now some people simply refuse it.
So if they hadn't shipped 8 million doses to the UK (where that vaccine was developed with public funds) there is no guarantee at all that they would have vaccinated 8 million more people.
Edit with non-UK source (as of 2 weeks ago):
"Millions of Vaccines in EU Unused (March 11, 10:00 a.m. ET) More than 11.5 million Covid vaccine doses that have been delivered to European Union countries have not yet been used, according to Bloomberg. The number of shots sent by manufacturers now totals 54.2 million, compared to 46 million a week previously. The data covers the week to March 7. [1]
[1] https://www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/31024-coronavirus-...
I believe several EU Countries have still not cleared AZ for use on (false?) fears of blood clots. And then there is the problem of distribution - not so easy in a place as large as the EU.
First some countries refused to give the AZ vaccine to people over 65, then they recklessly suspended it altogether, now some countries refuse to give it to people under 55. That's ridiculous.
Distribution is no more a problem than in the UK. The EU has probably the best infrastructure in the world and vast resources, while being smaller than the US.
Distribution is no more a problem than in the UK. The EU has probably the best infrastructure in the world and vast resources, while being smaller than the US.
That's ridiculous.
No vaccination for ages over 65 while there is insufficient data on efficacy in those groups, briefly suspend vaccination with new drug while evaluating reports of unexpected side effects, release of the vaccine to age groups that are least effected by those side effects.
I agree that all three decisions are wrong, but I don't think they're ridiculous. Just overly cautious.
No vaccination for ages over 65 while there is insufficient data on efficacy in those groups, briefly suspend vaccination with new drug while evaluating reports of unexpected side effects, release of the vaccine to age groups that are least effected by those side effects.
I agree that all three decisions are wrong, but I don't think they're ridiculous. Just overly cautious.
The side effects, which are still not proven afaik, are less likely than dying in a car crash during any given year. The EMA never raised issues or suggested that the vaccine was problematic.
It was indeed ridiculous to suspend the vaccine whatever spin they tried to give that decision. The two other points are equally ridiculous.
What seems to be the case is that some people try to essentially sabotage that vaccine.
It was indeed ridiculous to suspend the vaccine whatever spin they tried to give that decision. The two other points are equally ridiculous.
What seems to be the case is that some people try to essentially sabotage that vaccine.
They are keeping some as a reserve to deliver the second dose according to the recommended regimen since they cannot rely on the manufacturer sticking to the negotiated shipment rates.
Way to go on repeating UK media disinformation.
You keep repeating the same claim in this thread, a claim that runs counter to citations you are provided with and here you are, yet to provide any reliable sources of your own
Sure.
Here you go - https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...
The Vaccine Alliance did a contract with AstraZeneca before the UK. The Alliance was Germany, Italy, Netherlands and France.
AstraZeneca says this "doesn't count". I believe this was around 1 month before the UK agreement was signed.
Here's another article that goes over it https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-s...
And here's the press release up on Reuters https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...
https://uk.ambafrance.org/Inclusive-Vaccines-Alliance-reache...
And in the French embassy..
You're being fed BS. AZ signed with the Alliance, that contract was turned over to the EU comission. AZ is most likely caught up in giving their vaccine to the UK first and they are lying constantly. See the controversy on their efficacy in the US.
Here you go - https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...
The Vaccine Alliance did a contract with AstraZeneca before the UK. The Alliance was Germany, Italy, Netherlands and France.
AstraZeneca says this "doesn't count". I believe this was around 1 month before the UK agreement was signed.
Here's another article that goes over it https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-s...
And here's the press release up on Reuters https://www.france24.com/en/20200613-covid-19-france-italy-g...
https://uk.ambafrance.org/Inclusive-Vaccines-Alliance-reache...
And in the French embassy..
You're being fed BS. AZ signed with the Alliance, that contract was turned over to the EU comission. AZ is most likely caught up in giving their vaccine to the UK first and they are lying constantly. See the controversy on their efficacy in the US.
[deleted]
This is the wrong thing to complain about. At this point vaccine distribution is a zero-sum game. You might just as well frame it as "EU refrains from pushing itself to the front of the line".
This thing isn't over before vaccine availability isn't production-limited anymore.
The real mistake that the EU made was to not realize early on that vaccine production was going to be a huge issue in 2021, and make fixing that a priority.
This thing isn't over before vaccine availability isn't production-limited anymore.
The real mistake that the EU made was to not realize early on that vaccine production was going to be a huge issue in 2021, and make fixing that a priority.
Very untrue. COVID being much, much higher-risk in top age brackets means vaccinating the top age brackets everywhere first is a lot more beneficial than vaccinating country-by-country. Same reason why your country (whichever it is) likely made priority groups for vaccine distribution rather than make it a free-for-all.
And the first 15-20% or so of vaccines administered are CRITICAL. In true pareto principle, 80% of hospitalizations come from 20% of the population.
I'm in Belgium. We are facing a third wave. We're going back into lockdown pretty soon (it's almost certain). With just 400k more vaccines administered, we would not be in this mess.
400k. The US vaccinates 3 million every day.
And the first 15-20% or so of vaccines administered are CRITICAL. In true pareto principle, 80% of hospitalizations come from 20% of the population.
I'm in Belgium. We are facing a third wave. We're going back into lockdown pretty soon (it's almost certain). With just 400k more vaccines administered, we would not be in this mess.
400k. The US vaccinates 3 million every day.
Actually it would be better to vaccinate spreaders first - those in 20-40 range. Because they spread COVID more than elderly, and also in old countries (like EU) 20-40 is a smaller group than 60+.
Besides 20-40 range, also people that work at grocery stores, which are always open and can spread COVID. Elderly stay at homes have less contacts with other etc.
There was a preprint regarding that in the US, but everyone focuses on deaths and doesn't think of causes.
Besides 20-40 range, also people that work at grocery stores, which are always open and can spread COVID. Elderly stay at homes have less contacts with other etc.
There was a preprint regarding that in the US, but everyone focuses on deaths and doesn't think of causes.
The vaccines do not reduce spread that much, at least as far as we can tell.
They do, study in Israel confirmed that at least Pfizer one reduces spread.
> The US vaccinates 3 million every day.
The US has like 30x as many people as Belgium. A better comparison would be Ohio, which has about the population of Belgium and is administering ~90k doses per day, which is sorta like vaccinating ~60k people a day (based off a guess that ~15k doses are the one dose J&J vaccine).
I agree that prioritizing the most vulnerable, regardless of nationality is the morally better choice.
The US has like 30x as many people as Belgium. A better comparison would be Ohio, which has about the population of Belgium and is administering ~90k doses per day, which is sorta like vaccinating ~60k people a day (based off a guess that ~15k doses are the one dose J&J vaccine).
I agree that prioritizing the most vulnerable, regardless of nationality is the morally better choice.
The US are vaccinating ~1% of their population every day. In the EU there are forecasts that we won’t finish before mid 2022.
What's your point? 400k is less than 4 percent of the belgian population. If we had vaccinated 4 percent more of our population, we would avoid a new lockdown, with all the economic implications it has on the country and Europe as a whole. Most other EU countries are in that same situation.
Zero sum, it is not.
Zero sum, it is not.
My point is that your post is clearer with per capita numbers and percentages.
Doubling your vaccination rate is nowhere close to enough to avoid a lockdown. Germany has vaccinated 9% (half dose or better) of the population and we're going back into lockdown.
At 10%, there's still an endless number of old people left unvaccinated, and if you infect a large percentage of mid aged people, that alone is easily enough to wreck your health system.
At 10%, there's still an endless number of old people left unvaccinated, and if you infect a large percentage of mid aged people, that alone is easily enough to wreck your health system.
You misread my numbers. We are already at the same numbers as germany, like most EU countries. Doubling it would take care of pretty much all 65+.
Denmark has just decided it will open up when everyone above the age of 50 has been vaccinated. That's a sizeable part of the population (35%?)
The EU has received enough vaccine for everyone over 70-something. But it doesn't change anything about whether there's a third wave or not.
If you chose not to do a lockdown in the third wave because "older people are already vaccinated" that would just mean that your hospitals would fill up with younger people instead, since total number infected would be much higher than ever before.
If you chose not to do a lockdown in the third wave because "older people are already vaccinated" that would just mean that your hospitals would fill up with younger people instead, since total number infected would be much higher than ever before.
No, hospital patients are not magically younger when the old ones are vaccinated.
If you vaccinate the old, hospitals don't just "fill up" with the young. There are just straight up less hospitalizations. The virus still spreads but the percentage of severe cases go way down. Which need i remind you is the reason why we do lockdowns at all: because without them, hospitals are overrun and there is a risk of a healthcare system collapse.
The aim of the lockdown was never to eradicate the virus. It was to keep the healthcare system working.
If you vaccinate the old, hospitals don't just "fill up" with the young. There are just straight up less hospitalizations. The virus still spreads but the percentage of severe cases go way down. Which need i remind you is the reason why we do lockdowns at all: because without them, hospitals are overrun and there is a risk of a healthcare system collapse.
The aim of the lockdown was never to eradicate the virus. It was to keep the healthcare system working.
Sorry, hospitals in Poland started filling up with younger people.
Virus mutates and if it can't infect elderly it will infect younger and does.
Median age of hospitalized people is getting lower and we will soon see that vaccinating elderly wasn't the best choice (they don't spread COVID that much - don't take part in waves, are just victims to those).
Virus mutates and if it can't infect elderly it will infect younger and does.
Median age of hospitalized people is getting lower and we will soon see that vaccinating elderly wasn't the best choice (they don't spread COVID that much - don't take part in waves, are just victims to those).
Vaccines reduce but do not stop the spread, there is little evidence that vaccinating spreaders first would help much.
And median age of hospitalizations going down is a good thing lol. It means the vaccines are doing their job. Look at death rates and instances of severe illness per infection, those should be going down as well: the disease is less harmful if its highest risk groups are vaccinated.
(Are people here really having this hard of a time with basic statistics?)
And median age of hospitalizations going down is a good thing lol. It means the vaccines are doing their job. Look at death rates and instances of severe illness per infection, those should be going down as well: the disease is less harmful if its highest risk groups are vaccinated.
(Are people here really having this hard of a time with basic statistics?)
> (Are people here really having this hard of a time with basic statistics?)
No, no one is disagreeing with the narrow point you're making that protecting the oldest leads to fewer bad outcomes given equal numbers of infections.
But that's just one part of the story. In most of the EU, most people have not yet been exposed, so the pandemic will need to be ended by vaccination.
The situation now is treacherous, since it may initially seem like hospitalizations don't track infections like they used to. But if the conclusion from that is to just open up, nothing will be gained.
This is clearly borne out by both complex models and back of the envelope calculations.
And that's ignoring that there are health issues other than death to consider...
No, no one is disagreeing with the narrow point you're making that protecting the oldest leads to fewer bad outcomes given equal numbers of infections.
But that's just one part of the story. In most of the EU, most people have not yet been exposed, so the pandemic will need to be ended by vaccination.
The situation now is treacherous, since it may initially seem like hospitalizations don't track infections like they used to. But if the conclusion from that is to just open up, nothing will be gained.
This is clearly borne out by both complex models and back of the envelope calculations.
And that's ignoring that there are health issues other than death to consider...
OK, maybe it is not obvious.
Number of hospitalized young people is higher than it was in Autumn (with similar number of infections). Number of elderly obviously is smaller (because vaccinations).
Besides hospitalizations of younger population, their outcome is also worse - ratio of severe illness to mild is higher than it was before.
This is a trade-off, who should live, or how miserable the life of those that survive will be.
Number of hospitalized young people is higher than it was in Autumn (with similar number of infections). Number of elderly obviously is smaller (because vaccinations).
Besides hospitalizations of younger population, their outcome is also worse - ratio of severe illness to mild is higher than it was before.
This is a trade-off, who should live, or how miserable the life of those that survive will be.
How much of this is due to the B117 variant in your country? I haven't looked at stats in poland but there is a counter-acting effect from that as the variant is outright more lethal and spreads more easily. Here in Belgium, for what it's worth, the vaccines still outrun the variant but I could see it being different for other countries.
B117 was at 60% new cases two weeks ago.
One more thing, besides younger people (there are a lot of people in their their thirties).
A children (< 18 year olds) wards in hospitals in second larges city are full (number of released patients = newly added). Yes, children - those that wre mostly asymptomatic stopped being asymptomatic.
A children (< 18 year olds) wards in hospitals in second larges city are full (number of released patients = newly added). Yes, children - those that wre mostly asymptomatic stopped being asymptomatic.
If you vaccinate the old, hospitals don't just "fill up" with the young.
That is exactly what would happen if you let the pandemic roll at R > 1. People aged 40-60 are about a third as likely to get hospitalised as people 60-80. So if you triple the amount of cases in a population while having zero cases in the old age bracket, your hospitals will be just as full.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
That is exactly what would happen if you let the pandemic roll at R > 1. People aged 40-60 are about a third as likely to get hospitalised as people 60-80. So if you triple the amount of cases in a population while having zero cases in the old age bracket, your hospitals will be just as full.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
... with triple the cases. I didn't claim hospitals would just be empty, but for the same level of cases they will be a lot emptier. It gives more buffer.
Models (for BE) point to this current wave being the mildest one yet, with a peak well below the previous two. And remember the population has more and more immunity built up over time regardless of vaccines. Getting to triple the cases we had at the peak of the previous ones is not really in the cards.
Models (for BE) point to this current wave being the mildest one yet, with a peak well below the previous two. And remember the population has more and more immunity built up over time regardless of vaccines. Getting to triple the cases we had at the peak of the previous ones is not really in the cards.
That's odd, models for Germany predicted a tripling of the rate in a few weeks (unless there is a stricter lockdown), and the observations of the past few weeks bear this out. B.1.1.7 is more contagious (and more lethal), we've seen this in the UK and in Denmark, and we're seeing it now in Germany, where it has become the dominant strain within a couple of months. I don't see why it would be different in Belgium.
You claimed we wouldn't need a lockdown if we had vaccinated twice as many people, which is just incorrect, for the reasons outlined above: we're still left with vast parts of the population with no immunity, enough of whom would be hospitalized to oversaturate hospitals.
Edit: just looked it up, and Belgium has already doubled compared to one month ago, and is at double the rate that Germany currently has.
You claimed we wouldn't need a lockdown if we had vaccinated twice as many people, which is just incorrect, for the reasons outlined above: we're still left with vast parts of the population with no immunity, enough of whom would be hospitalized to oversaturate hospitals.
Edit: just looked it up, and Belgium has already doubled compared to one month ago, and is at double the rate that Germany currently has.
For the record here is my source on modeling for the current wave: https://twitter.com/houterkabouter/status/137329186541660979...
@houterkabouter's models have been excellent since the beginning so this is definitely where I'd place the most weight. The situation in Belgium is different from Germany because the day-to-day measures have been different since October.
@houterkabouter's models have been excellent since the beginning so this is definitely where I'd place the most weight. The situation in Belgium is different from Germany because the day-to-day measures have been different since October.
[deleted]
From a public health perspective, it's not zero sum. One country fully vaccinated and another equally sized country not vaccinated, leads to higher strain on the healthcare system than both countries 50% vaccinated. Pareto principle applies to hospitalizations.
I'll just note that without any factories of their own, Israel managed to get more vaccines than any other country.
As I understand it, because they were ready to pay whatever it costs. Which, if you look at the numbers, is not much at all.
As I understand it, because they were ready to pay whatever it costs. Which, if you look at the numbers, is not much at all.
> As I understand it, because they were ready to pay whatever it costs.
That particular cost wasn't financial though. It was a promise to fast track rollout where other countries wanted to go through lengthy approval and review processes (I am not saying lengthy == bad in that case), vaccinate their population as fast as possible and share data about efficacy with the manufacturers. The Israeali government was ready to take risks that many other countries weren't.
That particular cost wasn't financial though. It was a promise to fast track rollout where other countries wanted to go through lengthy approval and review processes (I am not saying lengthy == bad in that case), vaccinate their population as fast as possible and share data about efficacy with the manufacturers. The Israeali government was ready to take risks that many other countries weren't.
Interesting! I didn't know that!
I found an article confirming this. Though it also says
> "Israel paid about $30 per dose, almost double what other nations did"
I'm always shocked by how little money that is. $3000 per dose would be cheap!!!
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/01/05/the-secre...
I found an article confirming this. Though it also says
> "Israel paid about $30 per dose, almost double what other nations did"
I'm always shocked by how little money that is. $3000 per dose would be cheap!!!
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/01/05/the-secre...
Bu US drugs standards, maybe, but given that they plan to sell billions of doses I think that's a pretty good price, especially because they already got plenty of grants and support during development.
Here is how I think of the numbers:
So far the US has spent $5300B on Covid relief packages. That's around $15,000 per American.
If a vaccine dose can save $15,000, $30 is absurdly cheap. $3000 would be an incredible bargain!
This is also why the EU haggling over a few dollars per dose looks so insane to those who have done the math.
So far the US has spent $5300B on Covid relief packages. That's around $15,000 per American.
If a vaccine dose can save $15,000, $30 is absurdly cheap. $3000 would be an incredible bargain!
This is also why the EU haggling over a few dollars per dose looks so insane to those who have done the math.
Also if governments had said we want vaccines! Will pay $100 a head for an effective one I think private enterprise would have cranked out billions by now. Supply depends on how much you invest in production.
Maybe it's late with vaccines but the same principle applies to carbon. Set a $200 carbon price and private enterprise would go crazy with plans to take advantage.
Maybe it's late with vaccines but the same principle applies to carbon. Set a $200 carbon price and private enterprise would go crazy with plans to take advantage.
Israel approved the Pfizer vaccine 5 days before the US. The data sharing agreement/ability to deploy the vaccine were the additional factors, not an outlier stance on the risks.
People have way undervalued vaccines. The EU was haggling to get AZ down from like $5 to $2 when the cost of having someone off work for another couple of months is more $5000.
To be fair I'm pretty sure discussion about pricing never were the bottleneck, they happened in parallel to the safety/efficacy approval, so Europe saved 1.2B Euros doing this, at no other cost.
Well $5 vs $2 isn't really what happened. It was more in the UK:
>Under Bingham’s direction, the taskforce helped the Government to secure agreements to have access to six different vaccines across four different formats, amounting to 357 million doses – without being certain any of them would work. Spending £1 billion up front, it could not have been a bigger gamble.
Whereas the EU didn't do that. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/kate-bingham-exclusiv...
>Under Bingham’s direction, the taskforce helped the Government to secure agreements to have access to six different vaccines across four different formats, amounting to 357 million doses – without being certain any of them would work. Spending £1 billion up front, it could not have been a bigger gamble.
Whereas the EU didn't do that. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/kate-bingham-exclusiv...
What did the EU "not do"? The EU did pretty much exactly the same thing, securing access to 2.3B doses from 6 different providers and investing 2.7B$ for vaccine development (on top of the price tag of the vaccines themselves).
I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.
I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.
Not sure. To be honest I'm not that up on the details.
To provide a little more context, Israel is having an election today in which Netanyahu will struggle to secure victory. If he fails to keep the role of Prime Minister, that will make it harder for him to avoid prosecution in the multiple corruption cases that he has been indicted for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu
The UAE is also up to 80%.
Having a population of 8M helps a lot.
If Israel (or the UAE) had a population of 350M - they would not be even close to 100% vaccinated.
Having a population of 8M helps a lot.
If Israel (or the UAE) had a population of 350M - they would not be even close to 100% vaccinated.
Switzerland has a population of 8.6M, isn't part of the EU, and yet...
The problem there has been getting enough doses delivered.
The problem there has been getting enough doses delivered.
Gibraltar's also basically at 100%.
The EU has been beyond useless during the whole covid-19 pandemic. I find it pretty disappointing since with quicker action and common rules we could be in a much better place right now.
I think it is silly that EU citizens are dying and/or locked down because of money and/or contracts.
I think it is silly that EU citizens are dying and/or locked down because of money and/or contracts.
It’s been useless because it doesn’t have governance over pandemic response. It’s up to the member states. Member states have been mostly useless, yes.
With the exception of the newly-departed UK, has there been any EU state(s) that performed consistently better than others?
The UK is doing better with vaccines, but yeah, it didn't do any better during the pandemic.
The UK is doing better with vaccines, but yeah, it didn't do any better during the pandemic.
Yes, Sweden - which remained basically open for business, with only some closures to senior schools, no masks, no hospital overloading, and no lockdowns.
Sweden has a lower per-capita COVID deathtoll than Czechia, Belgium, Slovenia, UK, Hungary, Bosnia, Italy, Bulgaria, Moldova, Macedonia, Slovakia, USA, Portgual, Spain, Croatia, France, Poland.
Its 2020 deaths were only 5.75% higher than its 2018 deaths:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-...
And even then can mainly be explained by a weak 2019 flu season (with deaths in 2019 3.6% below 2018) and potentially lower deaths in 2021 due to mortality displacement.
By contrast, Germany, with extensive and rolling lockdowns, had deaths 3.2% higher than 2018:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoel...
So a superficial analysis would suggest that society-wide lockdowns could have saved a country like Sweden 2.55% of deaths, or 2,486 people. So you would be locking down 4,115 people in order to save one of them from dying of COVID, beyond what could be achieved from softer or voluntary measures.
Sweden has a lower per-capita COVID deathtoll than Czechia, Belgium, Slovenia, UK, Hungary, Bosnia, Italy, Bulgaria, Moldova, Macedonia, Slovakia, USA, Portgual, Spain, Croatia, France, Poland.
Its 2020 deaths were only 5.75% higher than its 2018 deaths:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-...
And even then can mainly be explained by a weak 2019 flu season (with deaths in 2019 3.6% below 2018) and potentially lower deaths in 2021 due to mortality displacement.
By contrast, Germany, with extensive and rolling lockdowns, had deaths 3.2% higher than 2018:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoel...
So a superficial analysis would suggest that society-wide lockdowns could have saved a country like Sweden 2.55% of deaths, or 2,486 people. So you would be locking down 4,115 people in order to save one of them from dying of COVID, beyond what could be achieved from softer or voluntary measures.
Poland has slightly slower deaths per capita then Sweden, so if that point is not valid I don't know if any other of your points are.
And although Sweden didn't do lockdowns, almost every corp sent their workers to WFH, and other people reduced their outgoings.
I have a friend in Sweden who has a shop and he complained that he has never seen so few people on streets and in his shop.
So Sweden had unofficial lockdowns.
And although Sweden didn't do lockdowns, almost every corp sent their workers to WFH, and other people reduced their outgoings.
I have a friend in Sweden who has a shop and he complained that he has never seen so few people on streets and in his shop.
So Sweden had unofficial lockdowns.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
1,300 deaths per million in Poland,
1,289 deaths per million in Sweden.
The point is that mandatory government lockdowns are unnecessary and destructive, the population will adjust their behavior themselves.
1,300 deaths per million in Poland,
1,289 deaths per million in Sweden.
The point is that mandatory government lockdowns are unnecessary and destructive, the population will adjust their behavior themselves.
Sounds a lot like the snafu the U.S. had around testing, precautions, etc: everything was left up to the member states. I'm not sure why the vaccine rollout has been different; maybe because the purchasing and at least part of the distribution was centralized?
Because the US doesn’t actually operate like that; it was just Trump being stupid and evil. Now that we have a president who’s not a vindictive moron, we’re functioning properly.
Most of Europe was much slower to approve vaccines than the US and UK. Because of that, I've assumed since the first approvals in December that Europe would lag. Once the US, UK and others said "hey, we're ready to buy all the vaccines, send us what you'e got", what did we expect would happen? I don't know why Europe lagged on the approvals, but it seems obvious that would also lead to a lag in rollout.
The FDA has yet to approve AstraZeneca's vaccine while the EU approved it back in January. The US has a stockpile of 40million doses which are not being used until approval arrives while European vaccination rates are limited by vaccine supply.
Approval speed has nothing to do with it.
Approval speed has nothing to do with it.
I agree with that. However, Martin Selmayr (Secretary-General of the European Commission) recently explained on TV that the slower approval was the reason that the EU is lagging behind the US in vaccations. Well, obviously that slower approval was for "more safety" according to him.
That explanation doesn't make a whole lot of sense since the delay was only a few weeks for Biontech/Pfizer or Moderna. As you mentioned, AZ is not even approved in the US. Europe would need to vaccinate around 50M people in a few weeks.
EU politicans know that the EU has failed at procurement. They now try to cover that up by blaming AZ and explaining delays with additional safety measures.
That explanation doesn't make a whole lot of sense since the delay was only a few weeks for Biontech/Pfizer or Moderna. As you mentioned, AZ is not even approved in the US. Europe would need to vaccinate around 50M people in a few weeks.
EU politicans know that the EU has failed at procurement. They now try to cover that up by blaming AZ and explaining delays with additional safety measures.
Selmayr hasn't been the Secretary-General of COM for two years.
Oh right, that's true. Sorry. He is now still a European civil servant though. In my defense, I quickly googled his name and that's what popped out first. On TV was announced as "spokesperson of the European Commission", so I thought that was his official job title.
The US should allow AstraZeneca to be used on volunteers in other nations, as long as it's not under coercion. The possible blot-clot issue is small, if any. Thus, volunteers is a decent compromise, rather than let it sit in storage.
The US is currently shipping AZ to Canada and Mexico
The US trial results just came out and it looks good. They will submit it for review to the FDA soon.
I find the information in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26544947 credible, and they indicate that approval is not the major issue. Instead, the EU's contracts with the pharma companies cannot be met, because the US and UK legislated/contracted to bind local production to local use, with the UK even specifically requiring/strongly encouraging Oxford to use a UK pharma company (instead of a US one) in order to ensure they could bind local production to local use.
Exactly. We in the EU are supply limited. In Austria, the first Pfizer shot was given before Christmas, and we are still at only 4% fully immunized (12% got at least one shot). We are even continuing to vaccinate while other countries have stopped AZ because of the recently reported potential issues - still doesn’t move the needle much.
The UK (and the US) used emergency provisions to grant temporary approvals early. The EU pretty much followed the normal procedure but with an accelerated schedule.
The EU branded the UK's emergency approval "reckless".
The EU branded the UK's emergency approval "reckless".
Really AZ vaccine is not even approved in the USA...
raducu(2)
Leaving aside the politics is anyone surprised that roll-out has been slower when organised (to a material extent) by a multinational organisation whose normal modus operandi is to build consensus amongst its members even if this takes time (I've experienced it at first hand).
Contrast this with the UK which has a very centralised governance model and a centralised single payer health system.
Not being critical of or praising either model or behaviour in either case. Just not surprising that this happens when the challenge is to deliver on a clear objective as rapidly as possible.
(And still disappointing that EU citizens have to deal with the results of this).
Contrast this with the UK which has a very centralised governance model and a centralised single payer health system.
Not being critical of or praising either model or behaviour in either case. Just not surprising that this happens when the challenge is to deliver on a clear objective as rapidly as possible.
(And still disappointing that EU citizens have to deal with the results of this).
Recent and related:
Europe's Vaccine Disaster - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964197 - Jan 2021 (418 comments)
I think there have been other threads as well?
Europe's Vaccine Disaster - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964197 - Jan 2021 (418 comments)
I think there have been other threads as well?
The EU has failed to secure contracts ensuring the EU produced vaccine stays in the EU[1].
So far the EU has exported 41.6 million doses of the vaccine (the largest importer being the UK)[2]. Both the US and the UK have exported 0 vaccines.
[1] https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1372897635577761803
[2] https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/137362147260701081...
So far the EU has exported 41.6 million doses of the vaccine (the largest importer being the UK)[2]. Both the US and the UK have exported 0 vaccines.
[1] https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1372897635577761803
[2] https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/137362147260701081...
The EU doesn't export anything, it's AZ and Pfizer that are exporting, as per their contracts with the UK and other countries. It is up to AZ and Pfizer to decide how to use their factories to meet their contractual obligations with the UK and the EU.
The UK (companies) on the other hand are exporting vaccine components (fatty lipids) that enable those factories to produce vaccines for not only the UK, but the EU, and Australia, if it ever receives its doses.
The UK (companies) on the other hand are exporting vaccine components (fatty lipids) that enable those factories to produce vaccines for not only the UK, but the EU, and Australia, if it ever receives its doses.
The UK has partially funded AZ and added a clause into the contract that will prioritise UK for future vaccine exports from the UK. And that's exactly what's happening, all AZ produced in UK stays in UK)
Whereas a similar contract between Germany and Biontech (Germany paid biontech $445 million to help develop the vaccine) didn't include a clause defining export priorities. Pfizer-Biontech is exported all over the world.
Canada, for example, gets their Pfizer-Biontech from the EU, instead of Michigan where they're also produced.
Whereas a similar contract between Germany and Biontech (Germany paid biontech $445 million to help develop the vaccine) didn't include a clause defining export priorities. Pfizer-Biontech is exported all over the world.
Canada, for example, gets their Pfizer-Biontech from the EU, instead of Michigan where they're also produced.
Why are people so defensive of any criticism of EU? There are a lot of good things that come out of EU, their vaccine program is a complete shitshow. Europeans should observe that and shed light on it.
The social media is full to the brim with "EU exported because they're nice guys" including the top comment on HN.
The social media is full to the brim with "EU exported because they're nice guys" including the top comment on HN.
You can be both critical of the EU vaccine rollout and still find it unacceptable that the other countries are not exporting but the EU is supposed to.
It seems like people are violently defensive in this thread. I flagged it because we are not getting down to the facts.
There are convoluted aspects of who manufactures it, where it is manufactured, what countries govern those companies, trade laws and agreements, what the contract was, what were the policies, what export/imports took place, and what is planned.
People are talking past each other.
There are convoluted aspects of who manufactures it, where it is manufactured, what countries govern those companies, trade laws and agreements, what the contract was, what were the policies, what export/imports took place, and what is planned.
People are talking past each other.
> other countries are not exporting but the EU is supposed to.
People keep saying this, but the EU is not exporting. Companies with facilities in the EU are exporting. Those vaccines don't belong to the EU; they belong to whoever bought them. If the EU prevented their export,it doesn't mean they own more vaccines, unless the plan is to steal the property of other countries and companies.
People keep saying this, but the EU is not exporting. Companies with facilities in the EU are exporting. Those vaccines don't belong to the EU; they belong to whoever bought them. If the EU prevented their export,it doesn't mean they own more vaccines, unless the plan is to steal the property of other countries and companies.
It doesn’t, but if you ban export, the value to export goes down to zero and the value in selling it domestically stays almost the same so companies will sell it there instead. Banning export is “soft” stealing.
US did ban export.
I’m all for the free market, but if export bans are ok for US it’s ok for EU, if it’s not ok for EU then it’s not ok for US.
What people will remember is the winner, and we will have increased brain drain because of it.
US did ban export.
I’m all for the free market, but if export bans are ok for US it’s ok for EU, if it’s not ok for EU then it’s not ok for US.
What people will remember is the winner, and we will have increased brain drain because of it.
The EU don't own the vaccines, it's so much more complicated than that.
> Why are people so defensive of any criticism of EU?
Or any opinion these days? Social media. The mute button, echo chambers, confirmation bias, lack of critical thought, and so on?
I think the events of the last few years will keep psychologists in business for decades.
A Douglas Adams quote feels apt:
"So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life. "
Or any opinion these days? Social media. The mute button, echo chambers, confirmation bias, lack of critical thought, and so on?
I think the events of the last few years will keep psychologists in business for decades.
A Douglas Adams quote feels apt:
"So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life. "
> It is up to AZ and Pfizer to decide how to use their factories to meet their contractual obligations with the UK and the EU.
Fyi this is completely untrue. The EU can (and has, now) block export of any product it wants. The US forced all domestic vaccine production sites to work for the US, while the EU failed to do so.
Fyi this is completely untrue. The EU can (and has, now) block export of any product it wants. The US forced all domestic vaccine production sites to work for the US, while the EU failed to do so.
AFAIK you are correct except perhaps that US and UK have exported 0 vaccines, though the number is probably quite small relatively speaking, and certainly smaller than the EU (foolishly) expected.
This os the EU being a good ally. The expectation was that the UK and US would also help by exporting part of their production, which was indeed dumb.
The US also didnt secure such contracts, they simply forbid any export. The UK is helped by AZ not sending anything produced in the UK to the EU, despite the EU contract stipulating that doses would also come from the UK.
The US also didnt secure such contracts, they simply forbid any export. The UK is helped by AZ not sending anything produced in the UK to the EU, despite the EU contract stipulating that doses would also come from the UK.
No, the expectation was that the EU vaccine demand would be supplied by EU factories. The UK doesn't even have final manufacturing for any vaccines other than the AstraZeneca one - for the most part, our government has taken a policy of funding and signing contracts with the same factories supplying the EU and assuming they wouldn't pull some export ban stunt to distract from their own problems. (This was probably naive.) And as for the AstraZeneca vaccine, the expectation that the contracted-for doses would come from their EU factories is literally written into their contract with the EU...
Lipids for the Pfizer vaccine are manufactured in the UK. A total EU export ban would have elicited a response nobody would have liked.
Not just that; quite a lot of EU AZ production goes to the UK, too.
Do you have a source on that? I was under impression that the UK manufactures their entire AZ stock and the only vaccine produced in the EU for the UK is Pfizer/BioNTech
The UK doesn't quite manufacture its entire supply of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine - some is imported from India, and apparently one small batch was from a factory in the Netherlands which doesn't have enough production capacity to make much of a dent in the European demand: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56483766 But yeah, the vast majority is apparently locally manufactured.
The EU has been pushing the conspiracy theory that the reason there's a shortfall in supply of the AstraZeneca vaccine there is because they've been exporting it all to Britain, but there's no evidence for that which anyone can find and the numbers don't add up either.
The EU has been pushing the conspiracy theory that the reason there's a shortfall in supply of the AstraZeneca vaccine there is because they've been exporting it all to Britain, but there's no evidence for that which anyone can find and the numbers don't add up either.
70% of the doses the EU bought were instead delivered to the UK to fulfill AZ's obligation to the UK.
After that initial batch, a further 8 million EU doses were exported to the UK, and a further 46 million EU doses were exported to other countries, including the US.
Just this second batch would have tripled the EU's vaccination rate so far.
After that initial batch, a further 8 million EU doses were exported to the UK, and a further 46 million EU doses were exported to other countries, including the US.
Just this second batch would have tripled the EU's vaccination rate so far.
>>The US also didnt secure such contracts, they simply forbid any export.
USA bought vaccines from everyone a year ago and opened the check book, giving them billions without knowing if the vaccine will work. And then put all their weight to help them find factories and stuff. So USA gambled relatively nothing (Covid has cost many trillions) and gained a lot.
EU doing what they do best...meetings. USA bans exports in this sense: if Pfizer agreed to give USA 50 million shots in March, no exports until that number is delivered. Seems fair.
USA bought vaccines from everyone a year ago and opened the check book, giving them billions without knowing if the vaccine will work. And then put all their weight to help them find factories and stuff. So USA gambled relatively nothing (Covid has cost many trillions) and gained a lot.
EU doing what they do best...meetings. USA bans exports in this sense: if Pfizer agreed to give USA 50 million shots in March, no exports until that number is delivered. Seems fair.
Pfizer wasn't part of Operation Warp Speed, they refused to join because they figured the bureaucracy would slow them down.
They did take some money from Germany though, because it came without strings.
Is it a coincidence that they were the first vaccine approved?
So to be fair it should be Germany getting all those Pfizer shots rather than the US.
They did take some money from Germany though, because it came without strings.
Is it a coincidence that they were the first vaccine approved?
So to be fair it should be Germany getting all those Pfizer shots rather than the US.
But USA signed a purchase agreement to buy the vaccines way before EU did. Pfizer is obligated to deliver them first. Warp speed was just to get it going, USA would cover any loses.
Can we agree that $20 or even $50 Billion is NOTHING to USA or EU at this point...each month in delays costs more. USA realized that a year ago and blocked doses from all, including 100 million Pfizer doses in July 2020. https://investors.pfizer.com/investor-news/press-release-det...
Can we agree that $20 or even $50 Billion is NOTHING to USA or EU at this point...each month in delays costs more. USA realized that a year ago and blocked doses from all, including 100 million Pfizer doses in July 2020. https://investors.pfizer.com/investor-news/press-release-det...
You cannot compare this just by contracts. The US is blocking all exports of COVID-19 vaccines (except for AZ to Mexico and Canada just now). Pfizer/Biontech were until just a few weeks ago only producing in one location inside the EU so they were bottlenecked in fulfilling EU demand. Meanwhile the EU doesn't block exports.
The EU did a bad job but we have to keep the facts straight.
The EU did a bad job but we have to keep the facts straight.
This:
The EU should start to invoke the Doha Declaration[1] (patent release), and use it in full, if necessary. This would pressure AstraZeneca to fulfill the contracts they signed and already got payed for.
It is irrelevant that other customers signed first / paid more / whatever. They signed a contract, and they did not deliver - there must be consequences. (not childish, passive-aggressive, vaccine clot-danger rumors/whining)
If they cannot deliver their production commitments, then the EU should open the patents and procure the production elsewhere, in AZ's place. (for example, Bayer's vaccine production capacity is unused)
The US did it - the nice way - with J&J and Merck.
EU bureaucrats need to adult-up, (and put aside neoliberal dogma / possible private sector careers) and act proactively for Citizen's (health and economic) needs. The more days people are without vaccination, the more will needlessly die. And further will the economy / livelihoods plummet.
I also see no problem that the EU continues production beyond its own direct requirements, and supplies those in the World that need vaccines and cannot afford them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Declaration
The EU should start to invoke the Doha Declaration[1] (patent release), and use it in full, if necessary. This would pressure AstraZeneca to fulfill the contracts they signed and already got payed for.
It is irrelevant that other customers signed first / paid more / whatever. They signed a contract, and they did not deliver - there must be consequences. (not childish, passive-aggressive, vaccine clot-danger rumors/whining)
If they cannot deliver their production commitments, then the EU should open the patents and procure the production elsewhere, in AZ's place. (for example, Bayer's vaccine production capacity is unused)
The US did it - the nice way - with J&J and Merck.
EU bureaucrats need to adult-up, (and put aside neoliberal dogma / possible private sector careers) and act proactively for Citizen's (health and economic) needs. The more days people are without vaccination, the more will needlessly die. And further will the economy / livelihoods plummet.
I also see no problem that the EU continues production beyond its own direct requirements, and supplies those in the World that need vaccines and cannot afford them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Declaration
If they did what you propose do you think it would incentivise or disincentivise companies on the future to produce medicines in that country?
It seems clear to me that a company would move out if they spent millions+ researching a vaccine only to have the government nationalize (i.e. steal) the patent. Good for regular citizens in the short term, but seriously damaging in the long term.
It seems clear to me that a company would move out if they spent millions+ researching a vaccine only to have the government nationalize (i.e. steal) the patent. Good for regular citizens in the short term, but seriously damaging in the long term.
This is another one of those comments that keep popping up... it's not by random chance that the majority of vaccine producers are established in Europe.
This type of operations aren't simple assembly lines that can be moved around, there's a lot of incentives to be in Europe, and this has been built up in decades.
No company would move out, they like Europe, a lot. There's a lot of qualified professionals, good infrastructure, and most likely good incentives to be there.
What you're seeing is the reaction to a company borderline criminal actions. They overlapped contracts, they are choosing what contracts to break and which ones to not break, they are delaying processes that are compromising deliveries, and they keep trying to move products while failing to deliver their contractual obligations.
It's like they are stretching the "best reasonable efforts" to the maximum.
This type of operations aren't simple assembly lines that can be moved around, there's a lot of incentives to be in Europe, and this has been built up in decades.
No company would move out, they like Europe, a lot. There's a lot of qualified professionals, good infrastructure, and most likely good incentives to be there.
What you're seeing is the reaction to a company borderline criminal actions. They overlapped contracts, they are choosing what contracts to break and which ones to not break, they are delaying processes that are compromising deliveries, and they keep trying to move products while failing to deliver their contractual obligations.
It's like they are stretching the "best reasonable efforts" to the maximum.
"steal"???
Who's "stealing" who?
Hasn't a contract been signed, and haven't the vaccines been actually paid for? Furthermore, who banked the cost (and risk) of the Fundamental Research that led to viable vaccines in record time - months, instead of years? (free hint: it was mostly European taxpayers money)
By lifting the patents, the EU would only be helping pharma fulfill their own contractual obligations and restore legality. Obviously, it should still pay the agreed price per dose.
Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed? ...specially if we are afraid to upset important people? Doesn't this, instead, create the moral hazard that the Law, in fact, is actually optional?
I'm genuinely curious to hear your (and other's) thoughts on this.
Who's "stealing" who?
Hasn't a contract been signed, and haven't the vaccines been actually paid for? Furthermore, who banked the cost (and risk) of the Fundamental Research that led to viable vaccines in record time - months, instead of years? (free hint: it was mostly European taxpayers money)
By lifting the patents, the EU would only be helping pharma fulfill their own contractual obligations and restore legality. Obviously, it should still pay the agreed price per dose.
Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed? ...specially if we are afraid to upset important people? Doesn't this, instead, create the moral hazard that the Law, in fact, is actually optional?
I'm genuinely curious to hear your (and other's) thoughts on this.
> Furthermore, who banked the cost (and risk) of the Fundamental Research that led to viable vaccines in record time - months, instead of years? (free hint: it was mostly European taxpayers money)
> By lifting the patents, the EU would only be helping pharma fulfill their own contractual obligations and restore legality
If EU members provided taxpayer money to private pharma, that's a tangential issue with EU govts. The contract most likely stipulates a certain # of doses delivered by a certain date. If that is broken they can be sued by the EU (or individual govt) for damages. But nationalizing their production is surely beyond what was stipulated in the contract if delivery dates aren't met.
> Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed?
No. That is not what I am advocating. If the company breaks the contract, just like _any_ other contract, there are procedures in place to pay for damages. Nationalizing the company or specific patents is not (and should not) be one of those damages.
If EU members provided taxpayer money to private pharma, that's a tangential issue with EU govts. The contract most likely stipulates a certain # of doses delivered by a certain date. If that is broken they can be sued by the EU (or individual govt) for damages. But nationalizing their production is surely beyond what was stipulated in the contract if delivery dates aren't met.
> Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed?
No. That is not what I am advocating. If the company breaks the contract, just like _any_ other contract, there are procedures in place to pay for damages. Nationalizing the company or specific patents is not (and should not) be one of those damages.
> The contract most likely stipulates a certain # of doses delivered by a certain date. If that is broken
Yes, it was - that's exactly the case.
> they can be sued by the EU (or individual govt) for damages.
They cannot: the EU bureaucrats were too "naive"(1) to allow the inclusion of a clause stating that everything is done in a "best effort" basis. That's exactly what AZ is shielding themselves with, to justify their failure to deliver. (however, Belgium law - which covers the EU contracts - does allow for the offended party to procure replacements and bill those costs on the offender)
> But nationalizing their production is surely beyond what was stipulated in the contract if delivery dates aren't met. (...) Nationalizing the company or specific patents is not (and should not) be one of those damages.
That's the point, it is not beyond legality at all:
The Doha Declaration exists _exactly for cases like this_.
For Pete's sake, _there were no Olympic Games in 2020_, isn't this a significant Historical event, constituting Force Majeure?
The Doha Declaration was lawfully signed, and is in force. ...unless, of course, there is some secret contract somewhere blocking it.
>> Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed?
>No. That is not what I am advocating. If the company breaks the contract, just like _any_ other contract, there are procedures in place to pay for damages.
Yes indeed, and the Doha Declaration would solve that
In fact, in a normal, rule-of-law and Democratic country, a blunder like this would be grounds for the stakeholders to sue for ruinous management. But recently, specially with the 2008 Crisis Austerity, and now with Vaccine-Supply-Gate, the EU appears to be some sort of Bermuda Triangle where Democracy and rule-of-law sometimes seem not to apply. And, dangerously, where people just shrug their shoulders to gross injustice - even against its own Citizens.
(1) Apparently there's this German saying:
You have to be smart to be this "naive".
Yes, it was - that's exactly the case.
> they can be sued by the EU (or individual govt) for damages.
They cannot: the EU bureaucrats were too "naive"(1) to allow the inclusion of a clause stating that everything is done in a "best effort" basis. That's exactly what AZ is shielding themselves with, to justify their failure to deliver. (however, Belgium law - which covers the EU contracts - does allow for the offended party to procure replacements and bill those costs on the offender)
> But nationalizing their production is surely beyond what was stipulated in the contract if delivery dates aren't met. (...) Nationalizing the company or specific patents is not (and should not) be one of those damages.
That's the point, it is not beyond legality at all:
The Doha Declaration exists _exactly for cases like this_.
For Pete's sake, _there were no Olympic Games in 2020_, isn't this a significant Historical event, constituting Force Majeure?
The Doha Declaration was lawfully signed, and is in force. ...unless, of course, there is some secret contract somewhere blocking it.
>> Or are you suggesting that, sometimes, the Law is not supposed to be followed?
>No. That is not what I am advocating. If the company breaks the contract, just like _any_ other contract, there are procedures in place to pay for damages.
Yes indeed, and the Doha Declaration would solve that
In fact, in a normal, rule-of-law and Democratic country, a blunder like this would be grounds for the stakeholders to sue for ruinous management. But recently, specially with the 2008 Crisis Austerity, and now with Vaccine-Supply-Gate, the EU appears to be some sort of Bermuda Triangle where Democracy and rule-of-law sometimes seem not to apply. And, dangerously, where people just shrug their shoulders to gross injustice - even against its own Citizens.
(1) Apparently there's this German saying:
You have to be smart to be this "naive".
Europe is a whole continent. Things at this scale simply work different.
And gladly so: pan-European Democracy should - but is clearly failing to - protect Citizens from the non-Humanitarian interests of "the market".
There always will be companies willing to serve the commercial opportunities in a space as massive as a continent. EU bureaucrats just need to start to behave like adults. (or the Adults in the Room need to assert themselves).
There always will be companies willing to serve the commercial opportunities in a space as massive as a continent. EU bureaucrats just need to start to behave like adults. (or the Adults in the Room need to assert themselves).
Oh, and here I sit in my lovely Japan with 1 out of 1300 people having had their first dose.
You don’t know how good you have it.
You don’t know how good you have it.
No one to blame but Angela Merkel who personally pushed other EU member states into delegating authority on the issue to the EMA even overruling her own minister of health.
Needless to say that the EU – the hotbed of excess politicians who've been "early reitred" by their domestic parties into Brussles/Strasbourg – isn't surprising anyone with failing so hard on the vaccine issue.
Failing on so many levels: From the fine-print of contracts (e.g. with AZ) to the big scale disinformation campaigns (by Euractiv and domestic media outlets) spurring Anti-British sentiments (e.g. good old nationalistic hate, up-cycled for the upper-class).
What we are witnessing is compound incompetence, which upon fear being detected hastingly looks for an escape goat.
Needless to say that the EU – the hotbed of excess politicians who've been "early reitred" by their domestic parties into Brussles/Strasbourg – isn't surprising anyone with failing so hard on the vaccine issue.
Failing on so many levels: From the fine-print of contracts (e.g. with AZ) to the big scale disinformation campaigns (by Euractiv and domestic media outlets) spurring Anti-British sentiments (e.g. good old nationalistic hate, up-cycled for the upper-class).
What we are witnessing is compound incompetence, which upon fear being detected hastingly looks for an escape goat.
There are a lot of things not true in your comment; I will point out a few things:
The EMA did not get any additional power delegated to it by Merkel or anybody else. Maybe you are talking about the joint vaccine procurement by the European Commission? An instrument that does actually allow EU member states to purchase additional vaccines.
If you are talking about EMA: the EMA does not even disallow countries from using other vaccines not approved by the EMA (Hungary is using Sputnik V for example).
The EU is not a "hotbed of excess politicians who've been "early retired"". That might have been true on some level in the past but everybody has realized for quite some time that the EU has real powers and people want those jobs. There are many young MEPs and very competent members of the European Commission.
We are not witnessing incompetence: Vaccine production is very difficult and the EU is not running a nationalistic scheme like the US or the UK who are not exporting any vaccines whatsoever. In four-five months most adult people in the EU will have the chance to be vaccinated. That's an enormous success story. Other developed countries don't have any significant amount of vaccines at all. All western countries with vaccines (except for US and UK) only have them because of the EU.
The EMA did not get any additional power delegated to it by Merkel or anybody else. Maybe you are talking about the joint vaccine procurement by the European Commission? An instrument that does actually allow EU member states to purchase additional vaccines.
If you are talking about EMA: the EMA does not even disallow countries from using other vaccines not approved by the EMA (Hungary is using Sputnik V for example).
The EU is not a "hotbed of excess politicians who've been "early retired"". That might have been true on some level in the past but everybody has realized for quite some time that the EU has real powers and people want those jobs. There are many young MEPs and very competent members of the European Commission.
We are not witnessing incompetence: Vaccine production is very difficult and the EU is not running a nationalistic scheme like the US or the UK who are not exporting any vaccines whatsoever. In four-five months most adult people in the EU will have the chance to be vaccinated. That's an enormous success story. Other developed countries don't have any significant amount of vaccines at all. All western countries with vaccines (except for US and UK) only have them because of the EU.
We do not have the vaccines because of the EU. Companies in those countries are involved in the process of creating and manufacturing the vaccine.
The EU as a body didn't set any of that up.
The EU as a body didn't set any of that up.
Sorry, I meant to say: Because the EU allows vaccines to be exported. The EU could in theory stop all exports which is what the US has done.
Yeah, it's insane to give them credit for that though.
They have absolutely no justification for doing so other than to cover their own arse.
They have absolutely no justification for doing so other than to cover their own arse.
Does the US have the justification to ban vaccine shipments to other countries in your opinion?
I think any kind of arbitrary bans on exports are unjustified really.
Not entirely familiar with how the US is handling the vaccine - are they banning exports of the vaccine which were funded by or purchased by foreign countries? Or are they just saying they're not allowed to make any new deals?
Not entirely familiar with how the US is handling the vaccine - are they banning exports of the vaccine which were funded by or purchased by foreign countries? Or are they just saying they're not allowed to make any new deals?
People have friends but nations have interests. Looks like the EU is rediscovering this the hard way.
In Switzerland it's the same. In my state/canton they don't even have enough vaccine for the high risk group of 240k people.
This is exceptionally sad due to the country being 1) rich 2) with small population (comparable to Israel) 3) big in pharma industry
Yet from what i see the public discourse is most concerned about opening up restaurant terraces, etc. and not the immense economical damage that having late vaccination campaign will inflict.
Yet from what i see the public discourse is most concerned about opening up restaurant terraces, etc. and not the immense economical damage that having late vaccination campaign will inflict.
What can you expect from an exceptionally incompetent government.
Today the Johnson vaccine was approved by the Swiss "FDA", but the government actually forgot to this day to order any doses of that vaccine...
Instead they ordered Novavax & Curevac which didn't even apply for approval in Switzerland.
[deleted]
It's easy to miss how far we are on a global scale.
3.4% World
1.5% Asia
0.42% Africa
15% N. America
10% Europe
4.8% S. America
0.44% Oceania
https://twitter.com/CoVacProgress
3.4% World
1.5% Asia
0.42% Africa
15% N. America
10% Europe
4.8% S. America
0.44% Oceania
https://twitter.com/CoVacProgress
Well, Hungary is in EU and they seem to be doing much better than the rest.
Hungary decided to bypass EU regulators and approve several vaccines that aren't approved in the EU, as well as procure them with their own deals.
You don't need to bypass regulators, all countries can approve it themselves. That's also how the UK approved their vaccines before the Brexit deal took effect.
There is no need to bypass the EU regulators as each EU country has its own regulatory body which has national authority.
The EU is a trade-bloc, full stop. The EMA is there to make it easier for pharma.
The EU is a trade-bloc, full stop. The EMA is there to make it easier for pharma.
> The EMA is there to make it easier for pharma
The highest vaccination rate of any EU country is Hungry with about half of the US's rate which in turn is a bit behind the UK[1].
In light of this, I am curious how you see EMA making it easier for pharma. Is there an underlying issue that I a missing?
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1194939/rate-covid-vacci...
The highest vaccination rate of any EU country is Hungry with about half of the US's rate which in turn is a bit behind the UK[1].
In light of this, I am curious how you see EMA making it easier for pharma. Is there an underlying issue that I a missing?
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1194939/rate-covid-vacci...
They are going with Chinese and Russian vaccines (and for a 10Mi country a small number will bump the per capita numbers nicely)
Not a bad strategy but it doesn't scale (especially for the Sputnik V current production capability)
Not a bad strategy but it doesn't scale (especially for the Sputnik V current production capability)
Interestingly on March 8 vast majority of that was Pfizer.
https://telex.hu/koronavirus/2021/03/08/koronavirus-melyik-v...
https://telex.hu/koronavirus/2021/03/08/koronavirus-melyik-v...
Here are national breakdowns:
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
I wish this website would allow having a link to an individual country, every time you refresh you have to deselect all default countries again and add the country you're interested in again
You can link to a graph with a particular selection of countries directly. There is a symbol with connected dots in the bottom right corner of the graph that allows to copy a link to it as it is shown.
Example:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Example:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Behind whom?
I mean, I get it, my own country is doing badly even compared to other EU countries but we need to keep in mind that the EU is at 10% or so vaccinated which is a lot more than almost any other major country or political bloc.
If you show only the UK and US as comparators, it looks really bad but that's a hard comparison set to go up against.
It's actually really ironic that the the UK and US took an approach that most people would consider a very European one by directly involving themselves and investing up-front in vaccine production while the European Commission took the neoliberal route of placing commercial orders in most cases and doing some but much less direct investment.
What has ended up happening is basically the confluence of suboptimal but not necessarily bad decision making and some really bad luck.
The EU, UK, and US all bought large portfolios of vaccines, enough a few times over if they all worked. They also all invested up-front in R&D, the EU proportionally less per head of population but of course many EU countries are not so rich and do not have so much domestic biotech/pharma so this has to be seen in that context as well. The EU is not all France/Benelux/Germany which do have such industries.
All three gambled that their portfolios would pay off.
US went heavy on J&J, Pfizer/Biontech, Moderna (not as sure about the US portfolio but loads of others) UK went for AZ, Valneva, GSK/Sanofi, Novavax, Pfizer/Biontech, (and later bought some Moderna but not much and only after it was approved). There is some kind of future agreement with CureVac which was only recently concluded. EU went for Pfizer-Biontech, AZ, J&J GSK/Sanofi, CureVac, Moderna. I think there have been discussions with Novavax and Valneva but no concrete orders.
(UK and EU have the vaccines roughly in order of order size)
So what happened?
Essentially the Pfizer vaccine worked brilliantly and they seem to have gotten their scale-up working quite well. Good for EU and UK both.
AZ works well (probably slightly less well, and with quite a lot of evidence that the decision not to use the stabilised fusion protein is what is making a difference to performance against certain variants) but AZ is having an absolute nightmare getting their yields up. This has affected all their global production - they had intended to delivery 30m doses to the UK by September... 2020 and 100m by the end of the year and clearly have not been able to. Making biological products is really hard, clearly. This has slowed down both the UK and EU roll-outs but because the UK scale-up started earlier (note my comments above about investment agreements, they started production scaling at their Oxford site as early as April 2020) they are further in the production ramp and of course most of the UK delay was before the vaccine was approved. So despite their UK order technically being later than their EU order, it has been felt much harder in the EU because the "lateness" of the UK order mostly happened before the vaccine (or any other vaccine) was approved.
The GSK/Sanofi vaccine has been postponed and may never see the light of day.
Novavax has had good results and is currently preparing for the approval process.
Both the UK and EU had hoped to use either AZ or GSK/Sanofi as their "workhorse" vaccine but the UK had slightly less emphasis on it and bought / invested in more doses of vaccine per head. The EU has not done a great job here but it's also not abject failure, they've just had some bad luck in that simultaneously their two biggest orders were cancelled and slowed down.
It could easily have been the case that a different set of vaccines didn't work and/or were hard to make and then it might be the US or the UK with the problem.
I think before we draw big picture conclusions (apart from Ursula vdL being useless, but I think any German who remembered how good she was at defence procurement could have told you that) we need to remember that to some extent there are historical contingencies at play here and we can end up over-fitting by assuming that literally every difference we see is due to structural problems/advantages faced by one side or another.
I mean, I get it, my own country is doing badly even compared to other EU countries but we need to keep in mind that the EU is at 10% or so vaccinated which is a lot more than almost any other major country or political bloc.
If you show only the UK and US as comparators, it looks really bad but that's a hard comparison set to go up against.
It's actually really ironic that the the UK and US took an approach that most people would consider a very European one by directly involving themselves and investing up-front in vaccine production while the European Commission took the neoliberal route of placing commercial orders in most cases and doing some but much less direct investment.
What has ended up happening is basically the confluence of suboptimal but not necessarily bad decision making and some really bad luck.
The EU, UK, and US all bought large portfolios of vaccines, enough a few times over if they all worked. They also all invested up-front in R&D, the EU proportionally less per head of population but of course many EU countries are not so rich and do not have so much domestic biotech/pharma so this has to be seen in that context as well. The EU is not all France/Benelux/Germany which do have such industries.
All three gambled that their portfolios would pay off.
US went heavy on J&J, Pfizer/Biontech, Moderna (not as sure about the US portfolio but loads of others) UK went for AZ, Valneva, GSK/Sanofi, Novavax, Pfizer/Biontech, (and later bought some Moderna but not much and only after it was approved). There is some kind of future agreement with CureVac which was only recently concluded. EU went for Pfizer-Biontech, AZ, J&J GSK/Sanofi, CureVac, Moderna. I think there have been discussions with Novavax and Valneva but no concrete orders.
(UK and EU have the vaccines roughly in order of order size)
So what happened?
Essentially the Pfizer vaccine worked brilliantly and they seem to have gotten their scale-up working quite well. Good for EU and UK both.
AZ works well (probably slightly less well, and with quite a lot of evidence that the decision not to use the stabilised fusion protein is what is making a difference to performance against certain variants) but AZ is having an absolute nightmare getting their yields up. This has affected all their global production - they had intended to delivery 30m doses to the UK by September... 2020 and 100m by the end of the year and clearly have not been able to. Making biological products is really hard, clearly. This has slowed down both the UK and EU roll-outs but because the UK scale-up started earlier (note my comments above about investment agreements, they started production scaling at their Oxford site as early as April 2020) they are further in the production ramp and of course most of the UK delay was before the vaccine was approved. So despite their UK order technically being later than their EU order, it has been felt much harder in the EU because the "lateness" of the UK order mostly happened before the vaccine (or any other vaccine) was approved.
The GSK/Sanofi vaccine has been postponed and may never see the light of day.
Novavax has had good results and is currently preparing for the approval process.
Both the UK and EU had hoped to use either AZ or GSK/Sanofi as their "workhorse" vaccine but the UK had slightly less emphasis on it and bought / invested in more doses of vaccine per head. The EU has not done a great job here but it's also not abject failure, they've just had some bad luck in that simultaneously their two biggest orders were cancelled and slowed down.
It could easily have been the case that a different set of vaccines didn't work and/or were hard to make and then it might be the US or the UK with the problem.
I think before we draw big picture conclusions (apart from Ursula vdL being useless, but I think any German who remembered how good she was at defence procurement could have told you that) we need to remember that to some extent there are historical contingencies at play here and we can end up over-fitting by assuming that literally every difference we see is due to structural problems/advantages faced by one side or another.
Lesson for other countries next time: order early enough from 5 different vaccines such that any two working will vaccinate your country. Make sure that your order comes with up front money to setup a supply chain for you, separate from the rest of the world.
Once any vaccine hits adjust orders up as required. If any vaccine makes it late enough that you don't need it, donate to a poor country or just pay and ask your doses be destroyed, thanks for trying.
Once any vaccine hits adjust orders up as required. If any vaccine makes it late enough that you don't need it, donate to a poor country or just pay and ask your doses be destroyed, thanks for trying.
Considering all the things the EU could have done better, what is the negative outcome here.. 2-4 months delay?
In a year will we still be talking about the vaccine shortness? I'm thinking no.
So yeah, the EU could use dirty tricks like export bans. But do we really need to?
At the end of the day, it matters if vaccination picks up before the next flue season. For the reminder of this one, we all have to rely on social distancing.
In a year will we still be talking about the vaccine shortness? I'm thinking no.
So yeah, the EU could use dirty tricks like export bans. But do we really need to?
At the end of the day, it matters if vaccination picks up before the next flue season. For the reminder of this one, we all have to rely on social distancing.
Well it’s all just hindsight - depending on which vaccines are approved first different countries would have one this race. The EU is a bit of a nicer player internationally in general because the only thing holding it together are the common market rules so it is very rules focused.
I think talking about winning or failed vaccination campaigns might be a bit early.
I think talking about winning or failed vaccination campaigns might be a bit early.
You can see some statistics for the Czech Republic (population is about 10.7 million) at [0].
Vykázaná očkování celkem = Administered total
Vykázaná očkování za včera = Administered in the previous day
Osoby s ukončeným očkováním (dvě dávky) celkem = People with complete vaccination (two shots) total
Osoby s ukončeným očkováním celkem za včera = People with complete vaccination in the previous day
[0] https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/vakcinace-cr
Vykázaná očkování celkem = Administered total
Vykázaná očkování za včera = Administered in the previous day
Osoby s ukončeným očkováním (dvě dávky) celkem = People with complete vaccination (two shots) total
Osoby s ukončeným očkováním celkem za včera = People with complete vaccination in the previous day
[0] https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/vakcinace-cr
To keep with the thread. France (67M): https://dashboard.covid19.data.gouv.fr/suivi-vaccination?loc...
premières doses = first doses (6.1M)
rendez-vous prévus cette semaine = appointments this week (0.5M)
There is a second tab dedicated to logistics: https://dashboard.covid19.data.gouv.fr/logistique-vaccins?lo...
That makes it about 10M delivered to date. Vaccination is primarily supply-restricted, only the elderly (75+, or 50+ with preconditions), and medical/strategic personnel (inc firefighters) can get vaccinated for now.
At current pace (last two weeks), it would take ~10 months to get 80% vaccinated with one dose... :/
premières doses = first doses (6.1M)
rendez-vous prévus cette semaine = appointments this week (0.5M)
There is a second tab dedicated to logistics: https://dashboard.covid19.data.gouv.fr/logistique-vaccins?lo...
That makes it about 10M delivered to date. Vaccination is primarily supply-restricted, only the elderly (75+, or 50+ with preconditions), and medical/strategic personnel (inc firefighters) can get vaccinated for now.
At current pace (last two weeks), it would take ~10 months to get 80% vaccinated with one dose... :/
Poland has this:
https://www.gov.pl/web/szczepimysie/raport-szczepien-przeciw...
Liczba szczepień 1 dawką = first doses administered
Liczba szczepień 2 dawką = second doses administered
Liczba dawek dostarczonych do Polski = doses delivered from suppliers
Liczba dawek dostarczonych do punktów = doses delivered to vaccination points
Zamówienia w trakcie realizacji = doses assigned to a vaccination point, but not yet administered
Stan magazynu = warehouse stock, unclear if this is for second doses (methodology changed last week)
Keep in mind that we typically get vaccines on Monday and vaccinate throughout the week - yesterday there were ~5k available doses in the whole of Poland
https://www.gov.pl/web/szczepimysie/raport-szczepien-przeciw...
Liczba szczepień 1 dawką = first doses administered
Liczba szczepień 2 dawką = second doses administered
Liczba dawek dostarczonych do Polski = doses delivered from suppliers
Liczba dawek dostarczonych do punktów = doses delivered to vaccination points
Zamówienia w trakcie realizacji = doses assigned to a vaccination point, but not yet administered
Stan magazynu = warehouse stock, unclear if this is for second doses (methodology changed last week)
Keep in mind that we typically get vaccines on Monday and vaccinate throughout the week - yesterday there were ~5k available doses in the whole of Poland
What we're witnessing is simply normal human behavior. We take care of our tribe before helping anyone else. AZ is HQ'd in England IIRC and Pfizer, Moderna are US-based companies. Of course the governments are going to 'negotiate' to have their needs met before allowing exports. If the tables were turned the EU would do the same (as I would expect them to.)
Pfizer didn't develop the vaccine, BioNTech did, in the EU, with funding from Germany. The EU has allowed BioNTech to export 40 million doses so far.
I really wish this graph included individual EU countries because the vaccination strategy is specific per country
A lot of the European countries are all at a similiar point, most likely cause the vaccines were procured together. Spain, Italy, France and Germany are virtually identical, on a per capita basis.
Hungary is a little ahead, as they are also using the Russian vaccine. But still behind the US.
Hungary is a little ahead, as they are also using the Russian vaccine. But still behind the US.
Italian company Adienne Pharma & Biotech has signed the deal to produce Russian vaccine domestically. They are waiting however for the approval of said vaccine by the EU.
I agree. I would love to know the specifics of any country in detail. Or a least a deeper understanding of medicine distribution in the EU. Any chance someome can explain and talk about it?
I think the EU is ordering and distributing the vaccines for the member states in order to do it even and fair (not sure how this works out in reality, though).
They coordinate purchases and deliveries at a national level only. It's a very long way down from a truck leaving the factory destined towards a country and someone getting stabbed in the arm by a professional, and all of that work is on the national agencies.
the only countries doing well are those that have stepped outside of the EU commission's bungled programme
Headline could have read : "player that manufacture, use and export resource lags behind players that manufacture, use, and don't export resource".
A terrible twitter threat summarized this as "UE played expecting fair play. This now looks naive."
https://mobile.twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/13728976355777...
I love bitching at my government like every one else, but it can't see what logistics you can improve to vaccinate more people when you don't exactly have vaccines.
Oh, and great play by FB to make sure no one below 30 in europe wants a vaccine, you played well for team USA on this one !
I suppose this will serve as a "never again" shock for bringing back some factories in the EU. Or it will simply serve as a stepping stone for nationalist who will just make things a tad worse, before it (maybe) (one hopes) (who knows ?) gets better.
A terrible twitter threat summarized this as "UE played expecting fair play. This now looks naive."
https://mobile.twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/13728976355777...
I love bitching at my government like every one else, but it can't see what logistics you can improve to vaccinate more people when you don't exactly have vaccines.
Oh, and great play by FB to make sure no one below 30 in europe wants a vaccine, you played well for team USA on this one !
I suppose this will serve as a "never again" shock for bringing back some factories in the EU. Or it will simply serve as a stepping stone for nationalist who will just make things a tad worse, before it (maybe) (one hopes) (who knows ?) gets better.
Always like when Twitter threads that are supposed to be sources of "truth" says stuff like this:
> "Meanwhile in March 2020, President Trump tried unsuccessfully to steal BioNTech from Germany"
They tried to buy the company. Not sure when "Buy" became "Steal"
> "Trump seemed to be in no hurry to sign Pfizer purchase contracts. "
He then links to an article about how they weren't rushing to buy additional vaccines on top of the 100 million already purchased. So, again, highly misleading. Not buying additional vaccines just became "in no hurry to sign Pfizer purchase contracts"
> "Meanwhile in March 2020, President Trump tried unsuccessfully to steal BioNTech from Germany"
They tried to buy the company. Not sure when "Buy" became "Steal"
> "Trump seemed to be in no hurry to sign Pfizer purchase contracts. "
He then links to an article about how they weren't rushing to buy additional vaccines on top of the 100 million already purchased. So, again, highly misleading. Not buying additional vaccines just became "in no hurry to sign Pfizer purchase contracts"
My partner, who is 32 with only minor underlying health issues, received her first jab yesterday. I'm obviously pleased that she will shortly have some degree of protection both for her sake and for our daughter and I, since my partner is the only one who has to leave the house for work.
However, at the same time, I can't help feel that we've jumped the queue slightly. The EU is experiencing another wave which will doubtlessly culminate in thousands of deaths, the majority will be from people older or with much more serious health complications than my partner.
I'm kinda sick of reading these debates about who ordered what and when under what conditions. There is a complete lack of compassion, we should be doing what we can to help those countries who still have older people unvaccinated. We can wait another couple of months before our holidays to Blackpool and Stalyvegas.
However, at the same time, I can't help feel that we've jumped the queue slightly. The EU is experiencing another wave which will doubtlessly culminate in thousands of deaths, the majority will be from people older or with much more serious health complications than my partner.
I'm kinda sick of reading these debates about who ordered what and when under what conditions. There is a complete lack of compassion, we should be doing what we can to help those countries who still have older people unvaccinated. We can wait another couple of months before our holidays to Blackpool and Stalyvegas.
Everyone who gets vaccinated is contributing, because you're all preventing the spread. Once it's not spreading, then it might be OK to hold off on shots so that the elderly can get them, but for now as many people should get it as possible.
The US, despite actually doing very well at vaccine distribution, should probably have switched to the one shot for everyone model.
The US, despite actually doing very well at vaccine distribution, should probably have switched to the one shot for everyone model.
This is a fair point. I'm also sick of hearing about unions complaining about this occupation not being vaccinated or this group with this health condition not being vaccinated first. If we expended all of the energy to somehow rate all of these competing factors we'd never be done.
Everyone wants themselves first, then whoever. I ran as soon as I was informed I'm eligible, who wouldn't. I'm well aware that as someone who works from home I should be lower on the list, but now I don't worry about life as much. (I'll worry less after my second shot)
Even if you work from home you still go out sometimes to stores and places like that. That's why living in rural areas didn't actually make people safer than in cities - they still gathered inside places like stores and church.
Or maybe you don't go out, I dunno. I do get too much delivery.
Or maybe you don't go out, I dunno. I do get too much delivery.
> We can wait another couple of months before our holidays to Blackpool and Stalyvegas
Speak for yourself. I'm not being glib. Compassion is wearing thin. There are anti-lockdown protests all over the UK and EU. There is a limit to how much more the ordinary citizen can endure. If that means that some people have to risk death then perhaps, as awful as it sounds, that may be for the best. They're the ones who should stay at home.
And yes, I do have elderly relatives who are at risk.
Speak for yourself. I'm not being glib. Compassion is wearing thin. There are anti-lockdown protests all over the UK and EU. There is a limit to how much more the ordinary citizen can endure. If that means that some people have to risk death then perhaps, as awful as it sounds, that may be for the best. They're the ones who should stay at home.
And yes, I do have elderly relatives who are at risk.
So why help the EU - why should they jump the queue before Africa or India or China?
I'm not sure what part of what I said you've misread as only helping the EU. For the avoidance of doubt, I think we should act with compassion, trying to save lives regardless of the place those people were born in.
I agree with that, but the UK was one of the first countries to stump up cash and start developing a vaccine before it'd even got bad in the UK.
That's basically the reason, it was part of the contract that we get first dibs if fund it.
I don't think EU countries putting out bad press about the AstraZenica vaccine is doing them any favors either - it's the company they're in negotiations with!
Not saying what's fair or isn't here but that's the reality.
That's basically the reason, it was part of the contract that we get first dibs if fund it.
I don't think EU countries putting out bad press about the AstraZenica vaccine is doing them any favors either - it's the company they're in negotiations with!
Not saying what's fair or isn't here but that's the reality.
Is Britain doing better than EU? I know nothing but that seems like an easy comparison, right?
Britain is one of the fastest vaccinating countries in the world. Maybe THE fastest (they're over 50% adults vaccinated already), ignoring smaller countries like Israel who don't have to worry about scale quite as msuch.
Britain erred on the side of faster rollout: many countries criticize them for rushing AZ's vaccine approval process actually.
Because Britain somewhat rushed the vaccine rollout, its probably not a fair comparison to other countries. USA vs EU is probably a better comparison (but maybe not, because USA has a *dominating* industrial base and can physically make more things than most other countries)
Britain erred on the side of faster rollout: many countries criticize them for rushing AZ's vaccine approval process actually.
Because Britain somewhat rushed the vaccine rollout, its probably not a fair comparison to other countries. USA vs EU is probably a better comparison (but maybe not, because USA has a *dominating* industrial base and can physically make more things than most other countries)
I'm not British, but I live in Britain and I can guarantee you that the vaccine rollout hasn't been rushed.
The difference was that Britain invested early on in multiple vaccines, created a whole new government task force with the only job to get the country vaccinated, they collaborated between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford in trials and the MHRA (which itself is one of the best if not the best medical regulator in the world) was running a lot of the approval checks in parallel which the EU and other regulators didn't do. Additionally the UK evaluated all data regarding the new COVID-19 vaccines and what we historically know from other vaccines that the chances of an initial one-jab strategy were extremely high almost to a point where it would be irresponsible to not first vaccinate as many people with one jab as possible. For once the UK put science and common sense above red tape and nationalistic rhetoric unlike many leaders in the EU like Macron or Ursula Von Der Lying.
The difference was that Britain invested early on in multiple vaccines, created a whole new government task force with the only job to get the country vaccinated, they collaborated between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford in trials and the MHRA (which itself is one of the best if not the best medical regulator in the world) was running a lot of the approval checks in parallel which the EU and other regulators didn't do. Additionally the UK evaluated all data regarding the new COVID-19 vaccines and what we historically know from other vaccines that the chances of an initial one-jab strategy were extremely high almost to a point where it would be irresponsible to not first vaccinate as many people with one jab as possible. For once the UK put science and common sense above red tape and nationalistic rhetoric unlike many leaders in the EU like Macron or Ursula Von Der Lying.
The UK also put a lot of effort into the full vaccine supply chain. And wrote a more comprehensive contract with AstraZeneca than the EU did. Details in the different approaches are here:
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
Exactly, they botched multiple other things but on this they got it right.
I had my first AZ Oxford shot on Tuesday, I’m 40 and have health issues but nothing that is directly affected by COVID (though coughing is dangerous for me).
Second one is due June 2nd, the first dose to as many people paid off, evidence was good it would but it was still a gamble with so many lives on the line.
I had my first AZ Oxford shot on Tuesday, I’m 40 and have health issues but nothing that is directly affected by COVID (though coughing is dangerous for me).
Second one is due June 2nd, the first dose to as many people paid off, evidence was good it would but it was still a gamble with so many lives on the line.
> they botched multiple other things but on this they got it right
This was the single most important thing to get right since 1945, by a large margin.
As a EU citizen I must say that the multiple layered structure of the EU is not worse than any other one in normal times but it was a disaster in these exceptional times. Too many indirections, nobody responsible for anything, the people in charge of the vaccination procurement not there because of elections.
This was the single most important thing to get right since 1945, by a large margin.
As a EU citizen I must say that the multiple layered structure of the EU is not worse than any other one in normal times but it was a disaster in these exceptional times. Too many indirections, nobody responsible for anything, the people in charge of the vaccination procurement not there because of elections.
> This was the single most important thing to get right since 1945, by a large margin.
Well said. It's obvious to me that the reason that the EU (and leaders of EU member states) are acting unpredictably at the moment is that they very well understand the gravity of this fuck up.
It is an existential threat to the project. Pandemics have ended civilisations in the past.
Well said. It's obvious to me that the reason that the EU (and leaders of EU member states) are acting unpredictably at the moment is that they very well understand the gravity of this fuck up.
It is an existential threat to the project. Pandemics have ended civilisations in the past.
The AZ was the second vaccine to be approved after the Pfizer one at the beginning of December, and then Moderna was approved days later.
All of the vaccines passed through the standard clinical trials and phases and were approved by the MHRA using the same process that would be applied to any other vaccine.
The vaccine testing and approval was fast because layers of bureaucracy were removed (e.g. writing proposals, securing funding, finding volunteers).
It's not fair to say that the UK rushed either the approval or the rollout. It's a bit like saying Usain Bolt rushed to win the 100m. Someone has to do it first. The UK approval process is one of the most stringent in the world.
All of the vaccines passed through the standard clinical trials and phases and were approved by the MHRA using the same process that would be applied to any other vaccine.
The vaccine testing and approval was fast because layers of bureaucracy were removed (e.g. writing proposals, securing funding, finding volunteers).
It's not fair to say that the UK rushed either the approval or the rollout. It's a bit like saying Usain Bolt rushed to win the 100m. Someone has to do it first. The UK approval process is one of the most stringent in the world.
1. USA only finished its trials this past week of AZ's vaccine, and those trials took place basically the same time as the UK's. In contrast, UK approved the vaccine in December 2020.
The 3-months of difference between the two countries is pretty pronounced, no matter how you look at it.
2. https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-approved-pfizer-covid-19-...
I remember articles at the time that highly criticized the UK's rollout of AZ vaccine.
3. It probably doesn't matter: the USA has found AZ to be very safe and highly effective: in fact, the USA's trials suggest a 79% efficacy rate (while the UK's own trial numbers were in the 60s). So if anything, the AZ vaccine has been proven to be safer and better in the tests on our-side of the Atlantic.
The issue is that extra 3-months of difference. Whether December 2020 approval was premature or not.
The 3-months of difference between the two countries is pretty pronounced, no matter how you look at it.
2. https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-approved-pfizer-covid-19-...
I remember articles at the time that highly criticized the UK's rollout of AZ vaccine.
3. It probably doesn't matter: the USA has found AZ to be very safe and highly effective: in fact, the USA's trials suggest a 79% efficacy rate (while the UK's own trial numbers were in the 60s). So if anything, the AZ vaccine has been proven to be safer and better in the tests on our-side of the Atlantic.
The issue is that extra 3-months of difference. Whether December 2020 approval was premature or not.
> The issue is that extra 3-months of difference. Whether December 2020 approval was premature or not.
And yet the USA approved the Pfizer vaccine on Dec 11, only a week after the UK.
I'm not sure why there's a 3 month difference in approving the AZ vaccine, but I do know that the USA has some particularly draconian import rules on foreign medicines, especially untested ones, so perhaps extra bureaucracy, and almost certainly a different testing regime for medicines to the UK and EU.
I'm satisfied that the UK MHRA and JVI have satisfactorily assessed the data from AZ, Pfizer, Moderna, (and Novavax). They're world experts in their fields.
And yet the USA approved the Pfizer vaccine on Dec 11, only a week after the UK.
I'm not sure why there's a 3 month difference in approving the AZ vaccine, but I do know that the USA has some particularly draconian import rules on foreign medicines, especially untested ones, so perhaps extra bureaucracy, and almost certainly a different testing regime for medicines to the UK and EU.
I'm satisfied that the UK MHRA and JVI have satisfactorily assessed the data from AZ, Pfizer, Moderna, (and Novavax). They're world experts in their fields.
We had Pfizer and Moderna approved. We had JJ in the final steps. I think there wasn't a huge urgency behind the fourth vaccine when all signs pointed to three good vaccines.
Since both approval processes reached the same conclusion it clearly wasn't premature.
A coin-flip would have reached the same conclusion 50% of the time.
That's why process is important: you can get lucky and come to the correct results with an improper process (ex: coin flips).
That's why process is important: you can get lucky and come to the correct results with an improper process (ex: coin flips).
I don't think you can argue that the UK's process was random. There is a process, it went faster, and achieved the same result. Maybe in some other universe it would have missed something and the longer process would have had a different result but that's not the world we live in, in which some not-insignificant number of people didn't die of covid in those 3 months.
I'm not saying the UK's process is random. I'm saying your logic and argument is fundamentally unsound.
Your __logic__ applies just as easily to coin-flips / random-chance to make decisions, and therefore your argument is unable to differentiate between a good system and a bad one.
Your __logic__ applies just as easily to coin-flips / random-chance to make decisions, and therefore your argument is unable to differentiate between a good system and a bad one.
For 1.
That would be because the FDA insisted on a US run phase 3 trial (which is fine) but that only began around the time the UK approved Oxford/AZ as AZ had first tried to use their UK/SA study for US approvals
> Maybe THE fastest
Almost, but not quiet. As of 3/21 Britain has done 44 doses per 100 people.
Israel is leading with 112, followed by United Arab Emirates with 74 and Chile with 44.31. These countries are all smaller than Britain though, as you point out. No country as big or bigger than Britain is doing it faster.
For comparison, the US has done 37 per 100, while most of the EU countries are between 12-13. Hungary is at 21, because they have not only used the EU provided vaccines, but also using the Russian vaccine.
Almost, but not quiet. As of 3/21 Britain has done 44 doses per 100 people.
Israel is leading with 112, followed by United Arab Emirates with 74 and Chile with 44.31. These countries are all smaller than Britain though, as you point out. No country as big or bigger than Britain is doing it faster.
For comparison, the US has done 37 per 100, while most of the EU countries are between 12-13. Hungary is at 21, because they have not only used the EU provided vaccines, but also using the Russian vaccine.
112/100?
2-doses needed per person for Pfizer, Moderna, and AZ vaccines.
So 200 doses per 100 people is the finish line. (Except now that USA just released J&J's single-dose vaccine, things got complicated...)
So 200 doses per 100 people is the finish line. (Except now that USA just released J&J's single-dose vaccine, things got complicated...)
For Israel it's actually 140 is the finish line because kids under 16 can't get it yet.
They are pretty close - around 115 right now.
They are hoping to start immunizing 12-16 in about 1 to 2 months.
They are pretty close - around 115 right now.
They are hoping to start immunizing 12-16 in about 1 to 2 months.
I'm under the assumption that child-vaccinations will be proven safe within the next few months, so the finish line at that point will be moved to ~200 doses per person.
In the next few months will only be 12-15. Younger ages will follow (next is 6-11), but not that fast.
Most western countries could have easily afforded to build their own factories but they cheapened out and didn’t want to spend the 10 million for a one off factory. That’s a lot harder to defend than throwing 100 million a day out of the window on lockdowns.
The factories needed to be set up last year, before the vaccines were approved.
IIRC, there were well over 20+ vaccines in the USA alone that were being developed. I dunno about other countries... it turned out that the mRNA (Pfizer / Moderna) and adenovirus (J&J / AstraZeneca) seem to have been the fastest at production.
Everyone who spent $Millions on other vaccines are still waiting for those tests to finish. Only if you were lucky enough to pick Pfizer / Moderna / AZ / J&J are you actually winning in the vaccine race right now. At this point, its looking like if you bet on the wrong vaccine, you lost your entire investment.
-------------
USA spent billions on building "all the above". We have millions of AZ-doses sitting on the shelves, waiting for final approval (final tests just finished this past week).
UK ordered 4-doses per person (when only 2-doses are needed, and even though its not known if children can safely take the vaccine yet). That's another reason why UK is so fast: they aggressively bought extra vaccines at an extreme rate. UK plans to either sell, or donate, those extra vaccines later on.
By buying so much extra vaccine, UK ensured that they are at the front of the line when it comes to vaccine supply from the various companies.
IIRC, there were well over 20+ vaccines in the USA alone that were being developed. I dunno about other countries... it turned out that the mRNA (Pfizer / Moderna) and adenovirus (J&J / AstraZeneca) seem to have been the fastest at production.
Everyone who spent $Millions on other vaccines are still waiting for those tests to finish. Only if you were lucky enough to pick Pfizer / Moderna / AZ / J&J are you actually winning in the vaccine race right now. At this point, its looking like if you bet on the wrong vaccine, you lost your entire investment.
-------------
USA spent billions on building "all the above". We have millions of AZ-doses sitting on the shelves, waiting for final approval (final tests just finished this past week).
UK ordered 4-doses per person (when only 2-doses are needed, and even though its not known if children can safely take the vaccine yet). That's another reason why UK is so fast: they aggressively bought extra vaccines at an extreme rate. UK plans to either sell, or donate, those extra vaccines later on.
By buying so much extra vaccine, UK ensured that they are at the front of the line when it comes to vaccine supply from the various companies.
At least for Moderna, it wasn’t pure luck to pick them. I was following it from near the beginning, and there was really solid data coming out on its effectiveness. Pfizer/Bio took a nearly identical approach.
And overspending by buying a hundred million doses of each of the 20 vaccines STILL would’ve been a massive bargain.
And overspending by buying a hundred million doses of each of the 20 vaccines STILL would’ve been a massive bargain.
Moderna and Pfizer are the "best" vaccines but it doesn't matter that much - everyone of them out there is good enough. The flu shot is only 50% effective, and all of these are better.
Some like AZ report low top line numbers like 60%, but you can look at the number of severe cases needing hospitalization. It's still approximately zero.
Some like AZ report low top line numbers like 60%, but you can look at the number of severe cases needing hospitalization. It's still approximately zero.
The US didn't spend significantly more than Europe, nor did the UK, but both did so a bit earlier and with more nationalistic approaches. Due to the production ramp this leads to 2-4 months delay for Europe. Still better than Canada or Mexico.
That German Biontech was allowed to partner with Pfizer will probably have cost 100000 European lives at the end, while saving 200000 American ones.
That German Biontech was allowed to partner with Pfizer will probably have cost 100000 European lives at the end, while saving 200000 American ones.
According to (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/world/europe/europe-vacci...) the US spent at least 3x (10 billion) as the EU (3.2 billion).
Which if you look at the economic damage of a lockdown, either price is laughably cheap. Like this is a multi-trillion dollar economic event, spending even 10x that much would still likely be a "deal".
Agree. I think a fair approach rather than targeting price would have been to pre-allocate a percent of the economic impact of the lockdown.
If pandemic lockdowns cost about 10% of annual GDP, then pre-allocating 1% of GDP to vaccines seems pretty conservative if anything. That means something like $100-200 billion for the US or EU.
The EU should have just pre-allocated $100 billion on vaccines. That would have been enough to secure every adult a vaccine from the big four manufacturers, plus leave a big pot of money leftover for contingencies.
If pandemic lockdowns cost about 10% of annual GDP, then pre-allocating 1% of GDP to vaccines seems pretty conservative if anything. That means something like $100-200 billion for the US or EU.
The EU should have just pre-allocated $100 billion on vaccines. That would have been enough to secure every adult a vaccine from the big four manufacturers, plus leave a big pot of money leftover for contingencies.
Note you don't even need the "lockdown" for the economic damage, it will happen anyway. People don't want to go to restaurants if it's going to kill their grandma.
The lockdown is actually merciful for many businesses; it's cheaper to close a restaurant entirely than run it at 50% capacity, and it's the only way conventions and other events can get out of their contracts with their venues.
The lockdown is actually merciful for many businesses; it's cheaper to close a restaurant entirely than run it at 50% capacity, and it's the only way conventions and other events can get out of their contracts with their venues.
https://www.nber.org/digest/aug20/consumers-fear-virus-outwe...
> By comparing counties with and without restrictions, the researchers conclude that only 7 percentage points of the 60 percentage point overall decline in business activity can be attributed to legal restrictions. Most of the decline resulted from consumers voluntarily choosing to avoid stores and restaurants.
> By comparing counties with and without restrictions, the researchers conclude that only 7 percentage points of the 60 percentage point overall decline in business activity can be attributed to legal restrictions. Most of the decline resulted from consumers voluntarily choosing to avoid stores and restaurants.
Even if this lockdown fan favorite is correct it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is that one country is done vaccinating earlier than another and being done earlier is cheaper than being done later.
The article says 10bn was the budget of project Warpspeed not the spend. I also would call into doubt the 3.2bn figure. The UK alone spent 2.9bn pounds on vaccines.
Also compare: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/12/03/9423037...
Also compare: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/12/03/9423037...
US spending exceeds $10 billion: https://time.com/5921360/operation-warp-speed-vaccine-spendi... (the Biden administration has since committed further funds also)
That NPR article proceeds on the very unlikely assumption that unused vaccines will not be reallocated to other countries.
It's also hard to really judge the potential other scenarios in the overall situation; the US production ramp up is going to benefit everyone in the medium term, and it's not really clear that it would have been much different if BioNTech partnered with a different manufacturer (much of the work in the US is being done at purpose built contract manufacturer facilities; AstraZenaca and J&J share some sites...).
Edit: There's also the question of whether potential partners were really interchangeable, or if Pfizer has some advantage in knowledge or whatever.
That NPR article proceeds on the very unlikely assumption that unused vaccines will not be reallocated to other countries.
It's also hard to really judge the potential other scenarios in the overall situation; the US production ramp up is going to benefit everyone in the medium term, and it's not really clear that it would have been much different if BioNTech partnered with a different manufacturer (much of the work in the US is being done at purpose built contract manufacturer facilities; AstraZenaca and J&J share some sites...).
Edit: There's also the question of whether potential partners were really interchangeable, or if Pfizer has some advantage in knowledge or whatever.
Canada ordered 9.6 doses per person, and we're substantially behind the US/UK.
Yeah, six months ago I thought Canada would do best because they ordered the most choices. In hindsight I now know they should have ordered less and instead invested in a supply chain for what they ordered. It would have been more of a gamble though. I wonder if they could have built a MRNA plant that could flex to moderna or Pfizer, and similar for the other 4 vaccine technologies (that I can't spell), even though only two are significant so far. (With promising futures for the others )
Considering it's taking 18 months to build a NovaVax plant, I don't think a plan based on domestic production would have helped.
Plants can be built faster if you are willing to pay more.
Canada is spending $170M on this one. I don't think more money would help.
It takes more than money to build a factory. Canada started refitting an old GSK factory to make vaccines in May 2020. It'll be ready November 2021.
I'm not sure where your $10M number comes from, Canada is spending CAD170M (USD135M).
I'm not sure where your $10M number comes from, Canada is spending CAD170M (USD135M).
A better comparison is with US, China, or Russia. And yes, it doesn't look very good. The rollout has been slow for a number of reasons, from actual resistance in some countries to the well-publicised shenanigans with manufacturers. Also, Europeans export a significant portion of their vaccine production, unlike others.
Britain is almost halfway done vaccinating all of the adult population. It’s not in the same league as the EU.
almost 50% have had the first dose, is different to halfway done vaccinating the adult population. As I understand the figures, only 2 million have had the second dose.
The difference in benefit between one and two doses is pretty small in absolute terms. Props to the UK for prioritizing that first dose to maximize public health (almost makes up for bumbling earlier parts of the COVID-19 response). Second, many of the people vaccinated in the UK are getting single-dose vaccines, not Moderna or Pfizer/Bio.
Another example where the "precautionary approach" turned out to be the wrong one - first doses first was self-evidently the way to go if you read the data that came out of the clinical trials.
Personally, as a (broadly) pro-european UK citizen - there's a _moral_ case that, sometime soon, we should make the case for exporting doses now we've covered off the most vulnerable in our own country. A dead person is a dead person.
And I'm _utterly dismayed_ that the EU's behaviour has obliterated any chance of that getting off square 1. Johnson is a populist - any move to restrict contractually-entitled exports by the EU will have the red-top press screaming blue murder and will back him into a corner. I'd fully expect a destructive spiral from there on out - starting with him blocking PZ precursor chemicals being shipped to the EU from Yorkshire. We should be shifting the conversation to "haven't we done well; now is the time to help our friends and neighbors".
Personally, as a (broadly) pro-european UK citizen - there's a _moral_ case that, sometime soon, we should make the case for exporting doses now we've covered off the most vulnerable in our own country. A dead person is a dead person.
And I'm _utterly dismayed_ that the EU's behaviour has obliterated any chance of that getting off square 1. Johnson is a populist - any move to restrict contractually-entitled exports by the EU will have the red-top press screaming blue murder and will back him into a corner. I'd fully expect a destructive spiral from there on out - starting with him blocking PZ precursor chemicals being shipped to the EU from Yorkshire. We should be shifting the conversation to "haven't we done well; now is the time to help our friends and neighbors".
Source on the UK using single dose vaccines? Afaik the only one is the J&J one of which not a single dose has been delivered to the UK so far.
They’re not using single-dose vaccines. But they are prioritizing (getting the first dose into as many people as possible) over (getting everybody who had the first dose their second dose the exact number of days later).
More or less infinitely better, yes.
Yes. UK and US have both had some export regulations on vaccines, which aren't present in EU. So the current flow of available doses isn't really a free market in the usual sense.
There are other factors than dose availability though. Putting vaccines into people isn't easy to do on a large scale in a short time window. Vaccine programmes are usually running with a much larger window, with vaccines that doesn't require extreme cold temperatures.
UK seems better prepared for this than many of the EU-bloc's countries.
The other part of the question however is: "Severely lags behind what?". Even with a "slow" rollout, EU countries in general are better off than many other countries in the world. It isn't the case they are trying to keep up with the pack in general, as they are well positioned. It's more that there are a few countries who are doing extremely well on a quick rollout.
There are other factors than dose availability though. Putting vaccines into people isn't easy to do on a large scale in a short time window. Vaccine programmes are usually running with a much larger window, with vaccines that doesn't require extreme cold temperatures.
UK seems better prepared for this than many of the EU-bloc's countries.
The other part of the question however is: "Severely lags behind what?". Even with a "slow" rollout, EU countries in general are better off than many other countries in the world. It isn't the case they are trying to keep up with the pack in general, as they are well positioned. It's more that there are a few countries who are doing extremely well on a quick rollout.
There's no export restrictions in the UK, they just ordered vaccines earlier and in bigger bulk than the EU (comparatively).
One of the many spats about this between the EU and the UK was when an EU functionary incorrectly claimed the UK had export controls and they had to back track[1].
As far as I know, the EU gambled on a French vaccine that unfortunately failed, then ordered other vaccines much later than everyone else.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/6d28903d-3723-45cc-878a-21e1f2d39...
One of the many spats about this between the EU and the UK was when an EU functionary incorrectly claimed the UK had export controls and they had to back track[1].
As far as I know, the EU gambled on a French vaccine that unfortunately failed, then ordered other vaccines much later than everyone else.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/6d28903d-3723-45cc-878a-21e1f2d39...
The EU signed contract with AstraZeneca 1 day before the UK did, claims https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897637469458432
There's no export restriction, it's more subtle.
UK has funded Oxford vaccine development on condition that UK gets preference for doses produced in UK (if not elsewhere too).
This has exactly the same practical effect as an export ban, but it technically isn't an export ban, hence the recent grandstanding from UK politicians.
There's no export restriction, it's more subtle.
UK has funded Oxford vaccine development on condition that UK gets preference for doses produced in UK (if not elsewhere too).
This has exactly the same practical effect as an export ban, but it technically isn't an export ban, hence the recent grandstanding from UK politicians.
As a comparision BioNTech got $445M funding from Germany and in return Israel is getting priority.
The Israelis paid more[1] and placed orders earlier than the EU; it's not surprising their orders are higher priority.
[1] (https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-be-paying-avera...)
[1] (https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-be-paying-avera...)
It wouldn’t matter if Germany asked for vaccine priority for providing $440M, just like what US and UK did. EU is extremely inefficient compared to how much money it’s spending for the pandemic.
Israel got priority by being 'just right' sized with an efficient healthcare system and being able to demonstrate the ability to organise a mass vaccination as quickly as possible. As such they acted as a very large scale test of what we can expect as the number of people vaccinated increases.
I don't think this is particularly to the detriment of Germany. Wasn't Israel vaccinating people before Germany had approved any vaccination?
I don't think this is particularly to the detriment of Germany. Wasn't Israel vaccinating people before Germany had approved any vaccination?
I mean did they expect a lot with just that? The USA was willing to commit to billions if they delivered.
I think you are wrong. UK gov blocked exports to the EU.
"Two factories in Britain run by Oxford Biomedica and Cobra Biologics are also listed as suppliers to the EU in the contract with AstraZeneca, but no vaccine has so far been shipped from Britain to the EU, despite Brussels' earlier requests."
"AstraZeneca told EU officials that the UK is using a clause in its supply contract that prevents export of its vaccines until the British market is fully served, EU officials said."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-uk-...
"Two factories in Britain run by Oxford Biomedica and Cobra Biologics are also listed as suppliers to the EU in the contract with AstraZeneca, but no vaccine has so far been shipped from Britain to the EU, despite Brussels' earlier requests."
"AstraZeneca told EU officials that the UK is using a clause in its supply contract that prevents export of its vaccines until the British market is fully served, EU officials said."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-uk-...
So?
That's a commercial clause, AZ took funding for vaccine development with that clause in it.
That's not an export ban, that was paid for.
That's a commercial clause, AZ took funding for vaccine development with that clause in it.
That's not an export ban, that was paid for.
AZ took funding from the EU as well and delivered zero vaccines from its UK facilities breaching its agreement.
Do you expect the EU to watch how AZ fails to deliver on its contract, exports vaccines made on EU soil to the UK and then talk about commercial clauses, in a pandemic?
Do you expect the EU to watch how AZ fails to deliver on its contract, exports vaccines made on EU soil to the UK and then talk about commercial clauses, in a pandemic?
UK is also one of the producers for the lipids that are needed to make the pfizer vaccine and that's still being exported
Well, the UK is prioritising getting as many people a first dose as possible, so the number "fully" vaccinated in the UK lags behind the EU.
Jury is still somewhat out about which method is better, and who will finish first. I'd put money on both reaching 70% of eligible people vaccinated with both doses around the same time.
Jury is still somewhat out about which method is better, and who will finish first. I'd put money on both reaching 70% of eligible people vaccinated with both doses around the same time.
It's even more complex than that, since some countries have now switched to UK-like intervals between doses (11 weeks)... but not all. And there are a bunch of country-specific issues too.
This is one of those situations where "EU" as a concept is a bit of an overgeneralization for 27 loosely-coordinating countries.
This is one of those situations where "EU" as a concept is a bit of an overgeneralization for 27 loosely-coordinating countries.
Yes, but the UK is so far ahead with jabs/person that it's going to make a the bigger difference.
The volume of jabs will dictate the outcome more than the 1-now-1-much-later or 1-now-1-soon strategies.
The volume of jabs will dictate the outcome more than the 1-now-1-much-later or 1-now-1-soon strategies.
In addition to everything else mentioned, the UK is also prioritizing first-doses while delaying the second dose far later than recommended (second dose at 12 weeks, instead of 3-4 weeks)[0]. That's on top of administering first doses without keeping a complete stockpile for second doses (ie, they are betting that it will be relatively easy to obtain a supply of second doses when the time comes).
So yes, the UK is far ahead of most other countries in first doses administered, but they're also going off-book for their vaccination protocol in a lot of ways that make it a bad point of comparison for other countries which are following clinical recommendations more closely.
[0] There's some clinical evidence in support of the 12-week gap for the AstraZeneca vaccine, though the UK made this decision before that study had been released, and there is not yet analogous data to support the efficacy of a 12-week period for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which the UK is also administering on a 12-week gap.
So yes, the UK is far ahead of most other countries in first doses administered, but they're also going off-book for their vaccination protocol in a lot of ways that make it a bad point of comparison for other countries which are following clinical recommendations more closely.
[0] There's some clinical evidence in support of the 12-week gap for the AstraZeneca vaccine, though the UK made this decision before that study had been released, and there is not yet analogous data to support the efficacy of a 12-week period for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which the UK is also administering on a 12-week gap.
Both theory and data overwhelmingly support delaying second doses in favor of getting first doses to more people, e.g. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/02/fi.... Notably, the "recommended" 3 week delay wasn't the result of determining the medically optimal interval; it was chosen to reduce the time needed for vaccine trials.
The UK has been vaccinating for more than 12 weeks now and the evidence shows that people aren't getting infected in that time period once they've had their first dose.
I can give my perspective as someone who was born in Canada but spent most of my adult life in Israel.
Currently my parents are in Canada, both in their 70s and still have no idea when the vaccine will be available to them whereas I am in Israel in my late 30s and I had my second dose of the Pfizer vaccine over a month ago.
The difference between the countries is startling. Yes Israel paid more money for the vaccine and agreed to share anonymized information with Pfizer. The math checked out (cost of closure vs vaccine) so it made sense. The fact that some countries focused on price negotiation vs mass vaccinations astounds me as each day a country is in lockdown costs billions of dollars. But I am not going to focus on that aspect.
What I am going to talk about is how Canada and Israel managed the crisis.
In Israel the general trend is to not really overthink things. This is perfect when there is a crisis and decisions need to be made fast. For instance when the virus started Israel was one of the first countries, outside of Italy and China, to implement a strict closure. Another habit Israelis have is to bend or flat out break the rules as they are in general very skeptical of anything the government does. This can also be important during the handling of a crisis, as some rules can get in the way of finding a solution faster. But this also has a downside. For instance after a few weeks of closure in which very few people died, a large chunk of Israelis started to ignore the closure rules.
Canada on the other hand was very slow to implement a closure but when they did the population was quick to listen and from my understanding continue to follow the rules the government set a year later.
Now to the vaccine program, when it became clear that Israel bet on the wrong vaccine, the PM called the CEO of Pfizer 30 times and agreed to pay way more just to get the vaccine faster. Our government, which is normally very slow to move, was able to arrange the funding for this within a few days. When the vaccine arrived in Israel - the government with the healthcare companies (Israel has public healthcare, but it is managed by 4 private companies) implemented a plan within days to distribute the vaccine to the entire population. The plan was intentionally simple with a very simple criteria of who is eligible and who is not (over this age - yes, under this age - no, healthcare worker - yes, at risk - yes). There was also some innovation in that they were the first country to repackage the vaccines so they could be distributed in smaller amounts to places like nursing homes or small communities (this entire process had to be done in a freezer).
Remember when I said Israelis break the rules? Well an interesting thing started to happen. At the end day, if there were vaccines that would need to be thrown out, nurses took it upon themself to give leftover vaccines to whoever would take it. They didn’t wait or ask for permission they just did what needed to be done. There were even reports of nurses walking out and pulling people off of sidewalks to come and get vaccinated. This of course didn’t last very long. Within days there were Facebook groups, not managed by any official organization, but by individual Israelis, that were publishing the location of clinics with leftover doses that need to be used by days end. Now the entire country was mobilized as part of the vaccine effort and this meant that very few doses were wasted. You see in Israel, they treated the vaccine effort like a war and that meant mobilizing the population, a clear goal, fast decision making and accepting that the one in the field (the doctors and nurses) have some freedom to make decisions that will lead to the goals being achieved. I don’t think this was a conscious choice, it’s just part of the countries DNA.
Contrast to Canada - when they got the vaccine, it sat in freezers while they discussed who would get it first. They didn’t focus on mass distribution and instead focused on making the most correct decision (which of course leads to no decision). It was compounded by the fact that each province created their own distribution plan, often based on a long complex set of criteria. Now maybe it did happen, but I don’t see it being nearly as likely that a nurse in Canada would take it upon him or herself to distribute the vaccine to those that don’t fit the official criteria, even if it meant throwing out vaccines at the end of the day. Canada didn’t take a war footing when it came to the vaccine distribution program.
Now let me make something clear - a lot of the things that made the vaccine program a success here, are also the things that cause the biggest headaches during normal times and a lot of the things that made it a relative failure in Canada are what make Canada great (over planning vs under planning for instance). Had the vaccine taken another year, I think Canada would have ended up in a much better position than Israel did.
I suspect the EU is much more like Canada and possibly even worse. My impression of the EU these days is that they do not take problems seriously until it’s too late. The writing is always on the wall, but they are very slow to move.
There are a lot of good things about the EU too. But in a real crisis I want to be somewhere that knows how to make quick decisions.
Currently my parents are in Canada, both in their 70s and still have no idea when the vaccine will be available to them whereas I am in Israel in my late 30s and I had my second dose of the Pfizer vaccine over a month ago.
The difference between the countries is startling. Yes Israel paid more money for the vaccine and agreed to share anonymized information with Pfizer. The math checked out (cost of closure vs vaccine) so it made sense. The fact that some countries focused on price negotiation vs mass vaccinations astounds me as each day a country is in lockdown costs billions of dollars. But I am not going to focus on that aspect.
What I am going to talk about is how Canada and Israel managed the crisis.
In Israel the general trend is to not really overthink things. This is perfect when there is a crisis and decisions need to be made fast. For instance when the virus started Israel was one of the first countries, outside of Italy and China, to implement a strict closure. Another habit Israelis have is to bend or flat out break the rules as they are in general very skeptical of anything the government does. This can also be important during the handling of a crisis, as some rules can get in the way of finding a solution faster. But this also has a downside. For instance after a few weeks of closure in which very few people died, a large chunk of Israelis started to ignore the closure rules.
Canada on the other hand was very slow to implement a closure but when they did the population was quick to listen and from my understanding continue to follow the rules the government set a year later.
Now to the vaccine program, when it became clear that Israel bet on the wrong vaccine, the PM called the CEO of Pfizer 30 times and agreed to pay way more just to get the vaccine faster. Our government, which is normally very slow to move, was able to arrange the funding for this within a few days. When the vaccine arrived in Israel - the government with the healthcare companies (Israel has public healthcare, but it is managed by 4 private companies) implemented a plan within days to distribute the vaccine to the entire population. The plan was intentionally simple with a very simple criteria of who is eligible and who is not (over this age - yes, under this age - no, healthcare worker - yes, at risk - yes). There was also some innovation in that they were the first country to repackage the vaccines so they could be distributed in smaller amounts to places like nursing homes or small communities (this entire process had to be done in a freezer).
Remember when I said Israelis break the rules? Well an interesting thing started to happen. At the end day, if there were vaccines that would need to be thrown out, nurses took it upon themself to give leftover vaccines to whoever would take it. They didn’t wait or ask for permission they just did what needed to be done. There were even reports of nurses walking out and pulling people off of sidewalks to come and get vaccinated. This of course didn’t last very long. Within days there were Facebook groups, not managed by any official organization, but by individual Israelis, that were publishing the location of clinics with leftover doses that need to be used by days end. Now the entire country was mobilized as part of the vaccine effort and this meant that very few doses were wasted. You see in Israel, they treated the vaccine effort like a war and that meant mobilizing the population, a clear goal, fast decision making and accepting that the one in the field (the doctors and nurses) have some freedom to make decisions that will lead to the goals being achieved. I don’t think this was a conscious choice, it’s just part of the countries DNA.
Contrast to Canada - when they got the vaccine, it sat in freezers while they discussed who would get it first. They didn’t focus on mass distribution and instead focused on making the most correct decision (which of course leads to no decision). It was compounded by the fact that each province created their own distribution plan, often based on a long complex set of criteria. Now maybe it did happen, but I don’t see it being nearly as likely that a nurse in Canada would take it upon him or herself to distribute the vaccine to those that don’t fit the official criteria, even if it meant throwing out vaccines at the end of the day. Canada didn’t take a war footing when it came to the vaccine distribution program.
Now let me make something clear - a lot of the things that made the vaccine program a success here, are also the things that cause the biggest headaches during normal times and a lot of the things that made it a relative failure in Canada are what make Canada great (over planning vs under planning for instance). Had the vaccine taken another year, I think Canada would have ended up in a much better position than Israel did.
I suspect the EU is much more like Canada and possibly even worse. My impression of the EU these days is that they do not take problems seriously until it’s too late. The writing is always on the wall, but they are very slow to move.
There are a lot of good things about the EU too. But in a real crisis I want to be somewhere that knows how to make quick decisions.
The free market saves the day again!
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/world/europe/europe-vacci...
> While Washington went into business with the drug companies, Europe was more fiscally conservative and trusted the free market.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/world/europe/europe-vacci...
> While Washington went into business with the drug companies, Europe was more fiscally conservative and trusted the free market.
This could be considered as a point for greater autonomy, thus favoring brexit. The EU is a much larger government, hence much more inefficient and with much more capacity for incompetence and corruption. In times of crisis, EU nations are dependant on this large bureaucracy, whereas UK can forge ahead and quickly get the people what they need. In this case that's the vaccine.
"Severely lags behind" well, only if we're considering the top performers
Countries that are ahead of the EU (on avg.) per person doses are mostly small (Israel, UAE, Chile). Comparable are the UK, US and China
In terms of actual doses the EU is behind the US and maybe China (debatable numbers).
The rest are behind
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Countries that are ahead of the EU (on avg.) per person doses are mostly small (Israel, UAE, Chile). Comparable are the UK, US and China
In terms of actual doses the EU is behind the US and maybe China (debatable numbers).
The rest are behind
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
According to the Bloomberg tracker[1] the United states has given 24.9% of the population at least one shot and 13.5% two shots. The EU has given 8.7% one dose and 3.8% two doses. The United States is administrating 2.5 million doses a day and the EU is administrating 1.1 million doses a day, although the EU has a larger population. Also the rate of vaccines administered in the EU is down from 1.5 million a day from the prior week, while the US rate is going up. So severely behind seems about right.
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-glo...
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-glo...
"Severely behind" the country doing the most vaccinations per day, but not on a general comparison. (Though yes last week the amount given was lower)
I completely agree the EU could be doing a better job, but in terms of general comparison, it's not doing bad
(It's doing better than Canada/Australia/Japan) for example.
I completely agree the EU could be doing a better job, but in terms of general comparison, it's not doing bad
(It's doing better than Canada/Australia/Japan) for example.
No, it's doing bad.
Canada should, by all means, be doing much worse than the EU, being a politically low-power country. Being roughly the same as the EU is bad.
Australia basically has eradicated covid.
Japan has the pandemic largely under control as well.
The EU, for all its socialism and condescension of the US, should by all means be clobbering the US. But it's getting clobbered.
Canada should, by all means, be doing much worse than the EU, being a politically low-power country. Being roughly the same as the EU is bad.
Australia basically has eradicated covid.
Japan has the pandemic largely under control as well.
The EU, for all its socialism and condescension of the US, should by all means be clobbering the US. But it's getting clobbered.
>"The EU, for all its socialism and condescension of the US, should by all means be clobbering the US. But it's getting clobbered."
The US has never lacked the decisiveness and the ability to mobilize.
The US has never lacked the decisiveness and the ability to mobilize.
The US lacks decisiveness ("you can always trust the Americans to do the right thing after all other options are exhausted" etc) but has the ability to mobilize (state capacity). We're just only good at one thing - war metaphors.
So we can't keep a lockdown going because that's not a war. But we can do vaccines great, that's just metaphorically shooting people.
So we can't keep a lockdown going because that's not a war. But we can do vaccines great, that's just metaphorically shooting people.
>"So we can't keep a lockdown going because that's not a war."
I am not from US (live in Canada) but my impression is that the US population is in general way less subservient to the government comparatively to other countries. This could be just the reason you could not lock them up.
I am not from US (live in Canada) but my impression is that the US population is in general way less subservient to the government comparatively to other countries. This could be just the reason you could not lock them up.
>"But we can do vaccines great, that's just metaphorically shooting people"
I find this conflation very poor
I find this conflation very poor
> The US has never lacked the decisiveness and the ability to mobilize.
It's dithering in both World Wars (among many, many other examples) would lead many people to question the decisiveness side of that.
It's dithering in both World Wars (among many, many other examples) would lead many people to question the decisiveness side of that.
Not sure about WWI events but from what I understand WWII did not pose immediate danger to the US and there was no pressing need for them to decide. From what I understand they were even happy to trade with the Germany. Once Pearl Harbor happened it changed the picture.
CTRL-F bureaucracy
Cue HN complaining how much "bureaucracy" and how much "red tape" the EU has, and smth smth socialism.
Cue HN complaining how much "bureaucracy" and how much "red tape" the EU has, and smth smth socialism.
But that is the problem here isn't it? Why else would the EU be 3 months behind the UK.
No that's probably not the problem, if this (plausible) thread is accurate: https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1372897635577761803
Edit: I'm not sure I buy the proposed argument that in a way, "the EU believed in the free market and fair play too much, and the US and UK betrayed those noble ideals", but I do believe the EU failed to recognize and/or counter the state of play, that the US and UK had legislated production partners and output to stay within national borders.
Edit: I'm not sure I buy the proposed argument that in a way, "the EU believed in the free market and fair play too much, and the US and UK betrayed those noble ideals", but I do believe the EU failed to recognize and/or counter the state of play, that the US and UK had legislated production partners and output to stay within national borders.
I think the EU even today is still boasting about how they saved a few euros on the vaccines. Such an great deal, when someone else pays for the consequences.
There are two issues: UK and US nationalism preventing companies to shift finished products to the EU in case of production troubles, while the EU has been slow to impose restrictions in the other ways. This meant that when the AZ plant in Belgium got production problems the EU had to take the shortfall alone instead of it being distributed on all customers: the upshot of this is that UK has simply gotten more vaccines than the EU.
The second problem is largely national: some countries have been slow to use the severely reduced deliveries they have gotten (possibly because their schedules were screwed up by the shortfall). The national governments have been really happy to pretend the national programs are perfect and there aren't large stockpiles of unused vaccines in their countries, and to blame all the tardiness on the shortfall "from the EU".
The second problem is largely national: some countries have been slow to use the severely reduced deliveries they have gotten (possibly because their schedules were screwed up by the shortfall). The national governments have been really happy to pretend the national programs are perfect and there aren't large stockpiles of unused vaccines in their countries, and to blame all the tardiness on the shortfall "from the EU".
Nationalism? The Astrazeneca vaccines was paid for by the UK 3 months before the EU.
Not 3 weeks, 3 months.
The same production problems with the EU batch happened to the UK one, as far as I know, but they had time to fix it because of those extra 3 months.
Now the EU want to jump the queue and give it out "evenly", because it suits them. And if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be saying 'je suis desolé, we have no vaccine for you British because of Brexit'. And you know it.
Plus they've been talking down the British strategy so much now their own citizens are wasting what Astrazeneca supplies they do have, so it'd be a complete waste.
Not 3 weeks, 3 months.
The same production problems with the EU batch happened to the UK one, as far as I know, but they had time to fix it because of those extra 3 months.
Now the EU want to jump the queue and give it out "evenly", because it suits them. And if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be saying 'je suis desolé, we have no vaccine for you British because of Brexit'. And you know it.
Plus they've been talking down the British strategy so much now their own citizens are wasting what Astrazeneca supplies they do have, so it'd be a complete waste.
The EU appears to be of the opinion that it needs to net export 8 million vaccine doses a month to the UK (plus 17 million to other countries, although the article doesn't detail if any doses are imported from those countries).
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-exported-mor...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-exported-mor...
Anyway, you can interpret this in a postivie way: the EU is trying to be good and is sharing its vaccinations more or less fairly with other countries (for now). However, you can also see it as the EU has no real power at all and is just an easy target to get fooled over by other countries..
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-eu-not-ready-to-share-covi...