covid-19

[RandBlade]

You are a confused little puppy aren't you?

No. AZN are producing billions of vaccines at cost around the globe. They're not making billions of profits from this. This is all public information, that you seem to be confused about.

Meanwhile in actions have consequences mode . . . any guesses as to why this might be?

Twitter Link

[Hazir]

No. AZN are producing billions of vaccines at cost around the globe. They're not making billions of profits from this. This is all public information, that you seem to be confused about.

Meanwhile in actions have consequences mode . . . any guesses as to why this might be?

Twitter Link

I fail to see why I should guess. You seem to have an unlimited supply of outlandish explanations for company policies.

[Aimless]

I fail to see why I should guess. You seem to have an unlimited supply of outlandish explanations for company policies.

Novavax and J&J being honest and upfront isn't exactly making AZN look good.

[RandBlade]

I fail to see why I should guess. You seem to have an unlimited supply of outlandish explanations for company policies.

By 1 March Novavax had over 1.4 billion of orders under contract. There's one large purchaser that they haven't signed a contract with, I wonder why that is?


The UK has the first 60 million doses from the British factory reserved, there's 8 factories worldwide though.

[Hazir]

Enjoy wondering, I presume.

The Council has ok-ed the EC's proposals for the framework on which export permits will be granted for covid-19 vaccines.

Seems the Brits have got their panties in quite a twist already. Interestingly enough they have also seen fit to say that the Halix production of vaccines could be earmarked for the EU. Don't know if this first sign of decency is enough to satisfy the EC. It being a little bit late.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm far from an expert on this, but listening to the discussions about vaccination I am getting the idea that it's rather short sighted to vaccinate your own population as fast as possible while disregarding the vaccination speed in other countries. As long as Corona is burning like a wildfire some mutation could turn up to bite your vaccinated ass.

Am I far off the mark thinking this?

AFAIK you're more off the mark than on it but you're certainly not entirely off it. It's another of those "the optimal stance is unknowable (and kinda shifts anyway) and there are arguments to made in either direction." It's certainly not a BAD thing to vaccinate your own population as quickly as possible, regardless of how well other countries are doing. It's also quite likely that your population is safest in the short term if you do so as well. Covid even without any new mutations that keep the vaccines from recognizing it are still killing people in most countries right now anyway. In the long term, their safety depends on getting everyone else vaccinated as well. In the medium-term, when you have a partly or mostly vaccinated population, deaths are trending down to "normal" and there is no sign of a mutation but you never know what tomorrow will bring? Almost impossible to say.

[RandBlade]

100% agreed with Fuzzy.

That's why as well as vaccinating your own people, schemes like Covax are critically important too.

But like in an aeroplane, putting your own mask on first, getting yourselves vaccinated first, is not a bad idea. That's why the smart thing to do was to invest heavily in both your own vaccination project and donate generously to Covax ASAP too.

[Aimless]

I'm far from an expert on this, but listening to the discussions about vaccination I am getting the idea that it's rather short sighted to vaccinate your own population as fast as possible while disregarding the vaccination speed in other countries. As long as Corona is burning like a wildfire some mutation could turn up to bite your vaccinated ass.

Am I far off the mark thinking this?

AFAIK you're more off the mark than on it but you're certainly not entirely off it. It's another of those "the optimal stance is unknowable (and kinda shifts anyway) and there are arguments to made in either direction." It's certainly not a BAD thing to vaccinate your own population as quickly as possible, regardless of how well other countries are doing. It's also quite likely that your population is safest in the short term if you do so as well. Covid even without any new mutations that keep the vaccines from recognizing it are still killing people in most countries right now anyway. In the long term, their safety depends on getting everyone else vaccinated as well. In the medium-term, when you have a partly or mostly vaccinated population, deaths are trending down to "normal" and there is no sign of a mutation but you never know what tomorrow will bring? Almost impossible to say.

All the covid vaccines are likely to offer partial protection against several other current or future variants. However, they're likely to differ wrt which variants they protect against (ie. Pfizer's might confer partial protection against A, B, C, whereas AZN's might confer partial protection against X, Y, Z). If there's one way in which fully vaccinating your population as quickly as possible might (in theory) be risky, it's if you vaccinate your entire population (more or less) with one specific vaccine. You can mitigate that risk by deploying a variety of vaccines and by ensuring excellent surveillance on a global scale. One thing that might be worth preparing for right now are safety studies on mixing vaccines; the mRNA vaccines are probably the ones that will be deployed most rapidly in response to future outbreaks involving other variants that manage to evade the current crop of vaccines, and it would be good to know that boosters with mRNA vaccines against new variants are safe to administer to people who have already been immunized with other vaccines.

[RandBlade]

There's already trials to determine that going on: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55924433

[Hazir]

All the covid vaccines are likely to offer partial protection against several other current or future variants. However, they're likely to differ wrt which variants they protect against (ie. Pfizer's might confer partial protection against A, B, C, whereas AZN's might confer partial protection against X, Y, Z). If there's one way in which fully vaccinating your population as quickly as possible might (in theory) be risky, it's if you vaccinate your entire population (more or less) with one specific vaccine. You can mitigate that risk by deploying a variety of vaccines and by ensuring excellent surveillance on a global scale. One thing that might be worth preparing for right now are safety studies on mixing vaccines; the mRNA vaccines are probably the ones that will be deployed most rapidly in response to future outbreaks involving other variants that manage to evade the current crop of vaccines, and it would be good to know that boosters with mRNA vaccines against new variants are safe to administer to people who have already been immunized with other vaccines.

Is this like another dimension to herd immunity?

[Being]

Cocktails, anyone?

[Aimless]

Well of course they CAN decide. Even Rand, for all his squawking here, typically concedes sovereign nations have the power and internal authority to do so. It might not be seen as having global legitimacy but they definitely can make the decision. I do finda it kinda sus to claim "we're going to stop these contracts from being honored with countries we feel are already doing well enough against the pandemic and preserve those supplies for our own use as part of our stand against vaccine nationalism" myself. At a bare minimum, it leads one to echo the statement you directed at Rand "who made you world police"?

This is not really an example of playing world police; it's an internal matter involving the legitimate application of laws and regulations to safeguard the bloc's internal strategic interests. If anything, the EU is policing itself—through self-imposed restrictions on the use of the vaccine export restriction mechanism.

Not that I support an export ban, but randblade, I'm surprised you're upset. You were completely fine with the UK breaking signed agreements, and with the UK using sanctions to ensure e.g. AZ gives the UK preferential treatment. The EU also signed contracts, and AZ isn't delivering, surely by your logic that gives them every right to enforce those contracts as well? I'd have thought you would say Australia should have ordered their vaccines sooner and invested in production in their own country.

Plus you were fine with breaking your own laws because it's an emergency (when it comes to e.g. corruption), and said governments should do anything to ensure they get their vaccines. So I thought you'd support this.

Anyway, would be good if they don't impose an export ban if you ask me.

Seems the Brits have got their panties in quite a twist already. Interestingly enough they have also seen fit to say that the Halix production of vaccines could be earmarked for the EU. Don't know if this first sign of decency is enough to satisfy the EC. It being a little bit late.

Although the EU-vs-UK aspect of this mess has been the focus of most of the media coverage and online debate, I think it's misguided. Overall, the UK hasn't really done anything wrong per se. The UK govt. has successfully implemented a strategy of vaccine nationalism and is now reaping the benefits of it. That's their prerogative. The Commission chose a course of action it hoped would forestall vaccine nationalism, and has, sadly, been disappointed. The real scandal has little to do with the relationship between the UK and the EU—despite the predictably jingoistic framing in English media—and a great deal to do with AstraZeneca's dealings with the EU. The company sold the EU a horse it did not have, failed to uphold its contractual obligations, and has continued to be evasive instead of working constructively with the Commission to mitigate the negative impact of this chicanery.

There's been a lot of derpheaded Anglo commentary—from a bunch of country bumpkins, bullshitters and unreliable/incompetent businessmen whose word obv. doesn't mean much—about how AZN's obligations to the UK have priority over the company's obligations to the EU because the UK signed a contract with them first. This is simply untrue, as a matter of law—both in general as well as wrt the specifics of this dispute; AZN's obligations under both contracts have equal priority. That is the case even though the company's contract with the Commission was signed a day before the contract with the UK that superceded any previous arrangements. The company has to meet its obligations under both contracts.

To the extent that the UK has exclusive rights/priority access to the output from any particular facilities—eg. the ones whose construction or development it funded under the condition of exclusive/priority access—it must be on the basis of prior contracts with those subcontractors. If such prior contracts exist, it is AZN's responsibility to disclose that conflict to the Commission, and to secure additional capacity at other facilities. The company's contract with the Commission authorized additional funds, and also left open the possibility of even more funding if those additional funds allowed under the contract would prove to be insufficient. The contract also obligates AZN to promptly inform the Commission of any risks wrt its ability to meet the target for the EU order, and provides for several possible ways to mitigate such risks (eg. by letting the Commission allow access to a facility reserved for another order). Securing necessary capacity and keeping the Commission apprised are both encompassed by the company's "reasonable best efforts" obligations, and it failed in both regards.

Sometime near the end of last Spring, not long after getting in bed with the Oxford people, AZN and the Oxford scientists decided to shift the entire supply chain—UK and EU/global—over to a 1000L batch process, from the 200L process they'd initially had promising results with. This 1000L process has been plagued by much, much lower yields than expected—everywhere. So it is not obviously the case that the UK's early start has enabled the UK supply chain to scale up fully before the EU supply chain—the yield issues with this process were still there less than two months ago. More importantly, these problems were known to the company last year. What appears to have happened is that AZN signed a contract with the Commission it hoped to be able to fulfill using the 1000L process, without securing capacity at additional facilities—because it hoped to be able to use the surplus from facilities where capacity had been reserved for the UK order. Even at the time the contract with the Commission was signed, they would've known this was implausible; by December, it should've been very clear that it was impossible for them to come even close to meeting their target for the EU order—and that's when they should've notified the Commission, in order to enable the Commission to take steps to mitigate the risk (eg. by trying to get more doses of other vaccines, or by authorizing the use of reserved capacity at other facilities, and by notifying national govts). That the untrustworthy bullshitters at AZN failed to uphold even the least demanding parts of their contract doesn't mean the EU is entitled to any doses that the UK may have secured exclusive rights to on the basis of prior contracts with AZN's subcontractors, but it does show AZN in a bad light. All of this is notwithstanding the mystery/controversy surrounding the Halix doses.

[Hazir]

I am making fun of the Brits just for the heck of it. I agree that it is mostly an issue between the EC and AZN, but it's British politicians that totally politicized it. About the Halix production: there is something fishy about that. Why would AZN avoid certification which made it impossible to use it in the EU where the lack of EU certification wouldn't be an issue in the UK.

[Hazir]

Well of course they CAN decide. Even Rand, for all his squawking here, typically concedes sovereign nations have the power and internal authority to do so. It might not be seen as having global legitimacy but they definitely can make the decision. I do finda it kinda sus to claim "we're going to stop these contracts from being honored with countries we feel are already doing well enough against the pandemic and preserve those supplies for our own use as part of our stand against vaccine nationalism" myself. At a bare minimum, it leads one to echo the statement you directed at Rand "who made you world police"?

I just saw this post. I don't think having a policy which makes the EU a source of vaccine for countries that have no access makes the EU 'the police of the world'. It merely makes it the lord of its lands.

I also don't see why we'd become that by blocking the actions of a hostile government, hiding behind the guise of a private party in a civil contract, that are detrimental to our own citizens and interests.

Just to make it absolutely clear: the UK is such a hostile state.

[Timbuk2]

Although the EU-vs-UK aspect of this mess has been the focus of most of the media coverage and online debate, I think it's misguided. Overall, the UK hasn't really done anything wrong per se. The UK govt. has successfully implemented a strategy of vaccine nationalism and is now reaping the benefits of it. That's their prerogative. The Commission chose a course of action it hoped would forestall vaccine nationalism, and has, sadly, been disappointed. The real scandal has little to do with the relationship between the UK and the EU—despite the predictably jingoistic framing in English media—and a great deal to do with AstraZeneca's dealings with the EU. The company sold the EU a horse it did not have, failed to uphold its contractual obligations, and has continued to be evasive instead of working constructively with the Commission to mitigate the negative impact of this chicanery.

There's been a lot of derpheaded Anglo commentary—from a bunch of country bumpkins, bullshitters and unreliable/incompetent businessmen whose word obv. doesn't mean much—about how AZN's obligations to the UK have priority over the company's obligations to the EU because the UK signed a contract with them first. This is simply untrue, as a matter of law—both in general as well as wrt the specifics of this dispute; AZN's obligations under both contracts have equal priority. That is the case even though the company's contract with the Commission was signed a day before the contract with the UK that superceded any previous arrangements. The company has to meet its obligations under both contracts.

To the extent that the UK has exclusive rights/priority access to the output from any particular facilities—eg. the ones whose construction or development it funded under the condition of exclusive/priority access—it must be on the basis of prior contracts with those subcontractors. If such prior contracts exist, it is AZN's responsibility to disclose that conflict to the Commission, and to secure additional capacity at other facilities. The company's contract with the Commission authorized additional funds, and also left open the possibility of even more funding if those additional funds allowed under the contract would prove to be insufficient. The contract also obligates AZN to promptly inform the Commission of any risks wrt its ability to meet the target for the EU order, and provides for several possible ways to mitigate such risks (eg. by letting the Commission allow access to a facility reserved for another order). Securing necessary capacity and keeping the Commission apprised are both encompassed by the company's "reasonable best efforts" obligations, and it failed in both regards.

Sometime near the end of last Spring, not long after getting in bed with the Oxford people, AZN and the Oxford scientists decided to shift the entire supply chain—UK and EU/global—over to a 1000L batch process, from the 200L process they'd initially had promising results with. This 1000L process has been plagued by much, much lower yields than expected—everywhere. So it is not obviously the case that the UK's early start has enabled the UK supply chain to scale up fully before the EU supply chain—the yield issues with this process were still there less than two months ago. More importantly, these problems were known to the company last year. What appears to have happened is that AZN signed a contract with the Commission it hoped to be able to fulfill using the 1000L process, without securing capacity at additional facilities—because it hoped to be able to use the surplus from facilities where capacity had been reserved for the UK order. Even at the time the contract with the Commission was signed, they would've known this was implausible; by December, it should've been very clear that it was impossible for them to come even close to meeting their target for the EU order—and that's when they should've notified the Commission, in order to enable the Commission to take steps to mitigate the risk (eg. by trying to get more doses of other vaccines, or by authorizing the use of reserved capacity at other facilities, and by notifying national govts). That the untrustworthy bullshitters at AZN failed to uphold even the least demanding parts of their contract doesn't mean the EU is entitled to any doses that the UK may have secured exclusive rights to on the basis of prior contracts with AZN's subcontractors, but it does show AZN in a bad light. All of this is notwithstanding the mystery/controversy surrounding the Halix doses.

Very informative summary, thankyou.

[LittleFuzzy]

This is not really an example of playing world police; it's an internal matter involving the legitimate application of laws and regulations to safeguard the bloc's internal strategic interests.

If they're saying "we're going to allow exports to countries A-K, except for B & E because we think those countries are already doing well (i.e. better than we are) with vaccinating" then I have a hard time seeing that as anything but vaccine nationalism. And if they're declaring that it's "an internal matter involving the legitimate application of laws and regulations to safeguard their strategic interests" to intervene in the supply chains of any countries which are doing too well by EU standards with their own vaccination programs, that's looking world-policeish.

If anything, the EU is policing itself—through self-imposed restrictions on the use of the vaccine export restriction mechanism.

Saying "oh, we could be screwing you all SO MUCH HARDER, if we really wanted to" does not convey what you seem to think it does. You and Hazir have both said that AZ has some real perception problems and I think you're right. But the EU does too. You might blame that on AZ as well and you could still be right but it doesn't make a difference in the end. That kind of squabbling inevitably paints both sides.

[Aimless]

Very informative summary, thankyou.

The bit re. the process is just my interpretation of some remarks from one of the scientists who developed the vaccine, nothing "officially" confirmed yet. But it's the only way you can make sense of both those comments, Soriot's comments, and the company's behavior. I guess we'll have to wait for the trial to know for sure

[RandBlade]

Very informative summary, thankyou.

Unfortunately most of it is untrue conspiracy theory nonsense, dressed up to sound informative.

The UK hasn't engaged in "vaccine nationalism", it has invested to build up manufacturing for vaccines. The EU keep using a line that Aimless seems to have swallowed that the UK isn't exporting vaccines as if there's something wrong with that, but it's worth remembering that prior to this pandemic not only did the UK not manufacture Covid vaccines (nobody did), we didn't manufacture as a country ANY major vaccines. All vaccines used in this country were imported, the only reason any manufacturing exists is because it was invested in. Something the EU comprehensively underfunded. The UK manufacturing that didn't exist has been built and paid for from scratch because there's a pandemic and it is distributing vaccines as it gets manufactured in their contractual order.

Then he has the lie that the Commission signed their contract a day before the UK did. That's untrue, the UK signed it's six months earlier. Contracts get updated but that doesn't dissolve the one signed six months earlier, or its prior obligations.

As for AZN, it's sad to see Aimless buying into conspiracy theories and untruths that they've done anything wrong. There's a reason why after threatening legal action two months ago that was suddenly dropped like a hot potato when the contract was released and lawyers got involved. The law and the contracts do not say what he thought it did. He says AZN should have informed the EU about production issues in December ... Ignoring the fact they did notify them in December! And they did again in January! It was a lie that got outed to say they didn't and he's still spreading these lies months later as it's easier to believe these lies than to admit underfunding development has had consequences.

Almost all manufacturers have had production issues of one type or another, this is a novel vaccine being produced at speed and scale the world has never seen before. Pfizer, Sanofi and AZN have all delivered less than was contracted. AZN have delivered two thirds less to the UK than was contracted by this stage, but it happens. That's why it was a best efforts contract. The same has happened in not just the EU and the UK but Canada and Australia and most of the developed world. The USA is a rare exception where their factories haven't faced the same issues.

The core of the issue is simple. The UK, the USA and Israel all paid much more to develop vaccine production than the EU did. The EU didn't pay up for development and is now behind as a result. All the mudslinging and dishonesty in the world doesn't distract from that, which is why the lawyers realised there was no case to answer in January and the courts hasn't been how this is dealt with.

The reality is they dealt with vaccine procurement with an attitude of austerity and are now getting what they paid for as a result.

[Hazir]

Unfortunately most of it is untrue conspiracy theory nonsense, dressed up to sound informative.

The UK hasn't engaged in "vaccine nationalism", it has invested to build up manufacturing for vaccines. The EU keep using a line that Aimless seems to have swallowed that the UK isn't exporting vaccines as if there's something wrong with that, but it's worth remembering that prior to this pandemic not only did the UK not manufacture Covid vaccines (nobody did), we didn't manufacture as a country ANY major vaccines. All vaccines used in this country were imported, the only reason any manufacturing exists is because it was invested in. Something the EU comprehensively underfunded. The UK manufacturing that didn't exist has been built and paid for from scratch because there's a pandemic and it is distributing vaccines as it gets manufactured in their contractual order.

Then he has the lie that the Commission signed their contract a day before the UK did. That's untrue, the UK signed it's six months earlier. Contracts get updated but that doesn't dissolve the one signed six months earlier, or its prior obligations.

As for AZN, it's sad to see Aimless buying into conspiracy theories and untruths that they've done anything wrong. There's a reason why after threatening legal action two months ago that was suddenly dropped like a hot potato when the contract was released and lawyers got involved. The law and the contracts do not say what he thought it did. He says AZN should have informed the EU about production issues in December ... Ignoring the fact they did notify them in December! And they did again in January! It was a lie that got outed to say they didn't and he's still spreading these lies months later as it's easier to believe these lies than to admit underfunding development has had consequences.

Almost all manufacturers have had production issues of one type or another, this is a novel vaccine being produced at speed and scale the world has never seen before. Pfizer, Sanofi and AZN have all delivered less than was contracted. AZN have delivered two thirds less to the UK than was contracted by this stage, but it happens. That's why it was a best efforts contract. The same has happened in not just the EU and the UK but Canada and Australia and most of the developed world. The USA is a rare exception where their factories haven't faced the same issues.

The core of the issue is simple. The UK, the USA and Israel all paid much more to develop vaccine production than the EU did. The EU didn't pay up for development and is now behind as a result. All the mudslinging and dishonesty in the world doesn't distract from that, which is why the lawyers realised there was no case to answer in January and the courts hasn't been how this is dealt with.

The reality is they dealt with vaccine procurement with an attitude of austerity and are now getting what they paid for as a result.

Look, it's not worth writing that much; you're hostile and no amount of smoke and mirrors is going to make us think about you differently.

[Aimless]

If they're saying "we're going to allow exports to countries A-K, except for B & E because we think those countries are already doing well (i.e. better than we are) with vaccinating" then I have a hard time seeing that as anything but vaccine nationalism. And if they're declaring that it's "an internal matter involving the legitimate application of laws and regulations to safeguard their strategic interests" to intervene in the supply chains of any countries which are doing too well by EU standards with their own vaccination programs, that's looking world-policeish.

Saying "oh, we could be screwing you all SO MUCH HARDER, if we really wanted to" does not convey what you seem to think it does. You and Hazir have both said that AZ has some real perception problems and I think you're right. But the EU does too. You might blame that on AZ as well and you could still be right but it doesn't make a difference in the end. That kind of squabbling inevitably paints both sides.

I think this is a mischaracterization. Every major vaccine producing govt. has reserved the right to restrict exports in order to safeguard their own interests. The UK has exclusivity agreements with domestic facilities that require them to prioritize the UK's orders. The US has similar policies in place. The EU's vaccine export restriction mechanism limits the scope of that power, by stating that it may be used where there is a threat to an existing contract with the EU, against countries that restrict their own exports of vaccines (or raw materials used in vaccine production), and against countries whose epidemiological situation is considerably better. If an order doesn't substantially threaten the fulfillment an existing contract with the EU, the likelihood of that order being blocked is low—see eg. 43 million doses authorized for export to 33 different destinations since this mechanism was first introduced. In this way, the EU polices its use of its own authority. Note that roughly 95% of the vaccine exports that have been authorized are Pfizer's—and these have been authorized even though Pfizer is also behind on its deliveries to the EU. This indicates a more limited export restriction than those imposed by the other actors mentioned above.

In other news:

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

Almost half of the vaccines produced "in" the EU have been exported. Of course, vaccine production supply chains are multinational, so one shouldn't assume that all of these doses were produced exclusively using EU-based production capacity, but it is an indication of the role EU-based production plays in the global vaccination drive.

[Aimless]

I don't recall whether I've already mentioned this, but:

Twitter Link

Let's just say the contract is definitely being used.

[Hazir]

If they're saying "we're going to allow exports to countries A-K, except for B & E because we think those countries are already doing well (i.e. better than we are) with vaccinating" then I have a hard time seeing that as anything but vaccine nationalism. And if they're declaring that it's "an internal matter involving the legitimate application of laws and regulations to safeguard their strategic interests" to intervene in the supply chains of any countries which are doing too well by EU standards with their own vaccination programs, that's looking world-policeish.



Saying "oh, we could be screwing you all SO MUCH HARDER, if we really wanted to" does not convey what you seem to think it does. You and Hazir have both said that AZ has some real perception problems and I think you're right. But the EU does too. You might blame that on AZ as well and you could still be right but it doesn't make a difference in the end. That kind of squabbling inevitably paints both sides.

You may think so, but what gives? This is not the way it's seen by the people who are really relevant to the EC. Which would be the citizens of the EU. And if I would go 100% cynical, it would be in the interest of politicians to mess up the vaccination program in the UK in order to make them shut up and make the national programs in the EU look less bad. That would be worth upsetting unlimited numbers of British voters.

[RandBlade]

Look, it's not worth writing that much; you're hostile and no amount of smoke and mirrors is going to make us think about you differently.

Not hostile, just educated as to the issues. Its funny seeing you and Aimless repeating lies months after they've become clear they're lies.

Its funny seeing people write nonsense about "I guess we'll have to wait for the trial to know for sure" etc when there isn't going to be a trial and that's public information.

The EU not only were informed as contractually due that there were issues, the EU not only knew in advance there could be issues, but the EU explicitly waived the right to sue about delays in deliveries because it was foreseen there could be delays.

But keep swallowing conspiracy theory bollocks if you want to.

[Hazir]

I don't recall whether I've already mentioned this, but:

Twitter Link

Let's just say the contract is definitely being used.

Actually, the non-application for certification of the Halix plant could be a reason to sue. It possibly constitutes one of the exemptions.

[RandBlade]

You may think so, but what gives? This is not the way it's seen by the people who are really relevant to the EC. Which would be the citizens of the EU. And if I would go 100% cynical, it would be in the interest of politicians to mess up the vaccination program in the UK in order to make them shut up and make the national programs in the EU look less bad. That would be worth upsetting unlimited numbers of British voters.

You're so bitter and twisted you want to sabotage another nation's program in order to make your own look less bad? Rather than learn lessons like oh I don't know: Invest more, or spread vaccines 12 weeks apart because those things work.

The problem is you can't sabotage our program because you lack the ability to do so. Because guess what, the vaccines made in the EU are made with components made in the UK. Shut down vaccine trade, you shut down the import of the lipids that go into the vaccines, you lose the ability to produce vaccines. That's why Pfizer spoke up and politely told the EU to stop being so fucking stupid.

But nice try.

[Hazir]

Not hostile, just educated as to the issues. Its funny seeing you and Aimless repeating lies months after they've become clear they're lies.

Its funny seeing people write nonsense about "I guess we'll have to wait for the trial to know for sure" etc when there isn't going to be a trial and that's public information.

The EU not only were informed as contractually due that there were issues, the EU not only knew in advance there could be issues, but the EU explicitly waived the right to sue about delays in deliveries because it was foreseen there could be delays.

But keep swallowing conspiracy theory bollocks if you want to.

You are about as friendly as a Putin troll, so that gives you an idea of what I think of your 'information'.

[Hazir]

You're so bitter and twisted you want to sabotage another nation's program in order to make your own look less bad? Rather than learn lessons like oh I don't know: Invest more, or spread vaccines 12 weeks apart because those things work.

The problem is you can't sabotage our program because you lack the ability to do so. Because guess what, the vaccines made in the EU are made with components made in the UK. Shut down vaccine trade, you shut down the import of the lipids that go into the vaccines, you lose the ability to produce vaccines. That's why Pfizer spoke up and politely told the EU to stop being so fucking stupid.

But nice try.

Your vaccination program is totally screwed if we would actually ban exports to the UK. Unlike what you say I don't suggest we should do that, I just made clear how doing exactly that could be a good thing for politicians in the EU. You should be grateful your government isn't as tone deaf as you, since they seem to be dialling back the crowing massively now that the guns have been loaded.

[RandBlade]

Your vaccination program is totally screwed if we would actually ban exports to the UK. Unlike what you say I don't suggest we should do that, I just made clear how doing exactly that could be a good thing for politicians in the EU. You should be grateful your government isn't as tone deaf as you, since they seem to be dialling back the crowing massively now that the guns have been loaded.

Are you aware that AZN is manufactured domestically in the UK?

Or that Novavax is manufactured domestically in the UK?

Or that most adults in the UK have already been vaccinated?

Or that Covid deaths have already been almost eliminated because people are already vaccinated?

Or that the UK will be a net exporter not importer of vaccines very soon?

In case you weren't aware the UK spent a metric shit tonne of cash on developing and purchasing vaccines. More than the entire EU combined. So good luck trying to sabotage others to make your own failure to invest look better.

There's been no crowing from the government, because its sad to see thousands daily dying unnecessarily on the continent from your failure to invest in vaccines and your failure to use the vaccines that have been stockpiled, and failure to spread out vaccines to 12 weeks which prevents 85% of deaths.

There is no pleasure to be taken in your unnecessary failures and preventable deaths. Its an entirely avoidable tragedy.

[Hazir]

Am I aware that you did so using about 20 million doses from EU production facilities you asked?

Am I aware that you still need more doses than you produce in the UK you asked?

Your gloating over having a world beating vaccination program will not be forgotten, nor forgiven.

[RandBlade]

Doses that were bought and paid for by being first to invest? Yes I did. That's part of being the first country to move to invest in vaccine production, indeed investing more than the entire EU put together.

When the entire EU combined spent less than the UK did on procuring vaccines just what exactly did you think would happen? Its not rocket science.

We have a world beating vaccination program because we fucking paid for it. We also exported the vaccine licence, at cost, to the rest of the world.