Graham wrote:
How do you pronounce it in Germany?
Buy-on-tec
Peter wrote:
Were Norway and Switzerland bound by the EU vaccine procurement project?
I don’t know how “bound” we are, but Norway did the ingenious maneuver of piggy back on Sweden for these vaccines. It’s all a disaster. Not enough vaccines by a long shot. And due to the uncertain delivery “scheme”, (first Pfizer, now AstraZeneca) they have decided to always have the second dose in reserve, in storage, so no one ends up with only one dose. Story today is that due to the AstraZeneca vapor ware, people below 45 will not be vaccinated until after summer, at the earliest.
Malibuflyer wrote:
To a large extend it does not require laws to do a shutdown if a vast majority of society actually wants it. Beyond schools and work everyone can do a lockdown by himself!
Pretending a large majority of population wants a lockdown while they do not even do the parts they can do by their own is just not credible.
Well, that is human nature for you and that is why such things NEVER work without strict legal consequence.
My experience as someone who lives here was that in general the people agreed to the necessity of shutdown and also openly said so. During the first wave, there were huge shouts to close borders, to lock down finally, e.t.c. There was the vocal minority and quite a bit of lobbying from the economy side of things against it, but the population would have gone with it.
But then you had what you observed: Lots of people who ignored it, who spat b.s. on social media, who simply went out and behaved like there was nothing. Many who initially kept to the “Stay at home” recommendations started asking themselves, if they were not simply being stupid sitting home while others enjoyed themselves. Even others had to fight domestic battles, where part of the families were pro and others contra lockdown and behaved accordingly. Try telling people who see exactly what you saw and get edgy by being locked up that they should pretty please stay home while the ignorants have fun in the sun, go to still open restaurants and so on. It does not work.
Or, a huge problem in Switzerland and elsewhere, we had literally hundreds of thousands of people who have relatives and homesteads e.t.c. in other countries and who will travel there at every opportunity.
Now try telling those people who, as normal in a crisis, have the massive urge to go home and see to their loved ones that they should pretty please stay home.
Doesn’t work and I am guilty there as well, as I traveled twice to BG last summer for exactly the above mentioned reasons. People start reasoning that “it’s anyway better where I go”, " everyone else is going, why should I stay home", and in some cases even relationships can be threatened or broken over these things.
For all that, it is MUCH easier for everyone if the government or the law sais “STAY HOME” or else. People are great in manufacturing reasons to do things they want to do despite or not to do things they don’t like. Humans are not Vulcans, their rationale is switched off most of the time. Otherwise, why would we have constant discussions about what “should be done” on a reason level but never is?
And to a large degree that is ok as long as you only harm yourself. But it is not ok if it harms others.
I think you will find that the heads of the EU 27 decided it was better to have a collective purchasing of the vaccine to avoid many of the problems which occurred with countries trying to outbid each other for PPE.
The EU are angry with AZ for several reasons as they see it.
1) They contracted and paid upfront for vaccine doses and are now being told they are not coming.
2) The CEO of AZ is interviewed by an Italian newspaper and gives out confidential information regarding the contract, but only gives the information which puts him in a good light. The EU want transparency and are demanding that the whole contract be published.
3) When AZ in the UK had problems producing enough vaccine at its UK factory to serve the UK they got it from their European factories.
The EU want reciprocity.
4) A meeting organised between the EU and AZ so that the EU could question AZ about the breaking of the contracted agreement and about transparency was cancelled, unilaterally at the last minute by AZ. They have now decided a meeting will take place today, but it is understood AZ’s CEO has refused to attend.
This might well be a big mistake on behalf of AZ’s CEO.
I will admit to have personally not read the contract or any of the communications between the EU and AZ. My information can all be said to be 2nd or 3rd hand from contacts I have in both Brussels and the City of London.
Graham wrote:
@MedEwok @Malibuflyer I need an answer from a German please. At work we have had BioNTech as a client for some years now, and we pronounce it bio-en-tek – but we are Brits, Irish and Americans. I have noticed the media is pronouncing it bi-on-tek. How do you pronounce it in Germany?
I say bi-on-tek, or rather the German pronunciation bee-on-tech. Despite the capital “N”, I have yet to hear someone put the emphasis on it…
gallois wrote:
1) They contracted and paid upfront for vaccine doses and are now being told they are not coming.
I dont think they did contract for a set amount, they knew it was best endeavours, and they should have known there would likely be a shortage.
gallois wrote:
2) The CEO of AZ is interviewed by an Italian newspaper and gives out confidential information regarding the contract, but only gives the information which puts him in a good light. The EU want transparency and are demanding that the whole contract be published.
What contract should be published? They must know about the contract they have. Any other contract is confidential. While it may be poor form, there is nothing to stop the CEO picking out bits of other contracts if he wishes, while not disclosing other bits, assuming both parties to the contract agree.
gallois wrote:
3) When AZ in the UK had problems producing enough vaccine at its UK factory to serve the UK they got it from their European factories.
The EU want reciprocity.
They may well, but this would be within the gift of the UK, not a contractual obligation.
gallois wrote:
) A meeting organised between the EU and AZ so that the EU could question AZ about the breaking of the contracted agreement and about transparency was cancelled, unilaterally at the last minute by AZ. They have now decided a meeting will take place today, but it is understood AZ’s CEO has refused to attend.
It is all very well to use the word breaking, but we dont know as far as I am aware anyone has broken anything. I have no doubt if AZ is in breach of contract the Courts will hear about it or a compromise will be agreed.
I am honestly not picking sides, simply making again the observation that a contract between two parties is just that, and how ever much you may think the supplier has made a more favourable contract with other parties it doesnt change the contract you have.
I dont think we know all the facts, and doubtless there is plenty of posturing. Doubtless time will tell, but it is best not to jump to conclusions. You can guarantee that while AZ might be subject to challenge, they will be very good at this type of contract, after all they do them all the time, its their business, so I would be surprised if they have the terms wrong, but stranger things!
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I dont think they did contract for a set amount, they knew it was best endeavours, and they should have known there would likely be a shortage.
You seem to have privileged information on the contract and therefore it’s hard to argue.
The problem is that the publicly available information is at least cheesy: No-one with at least a glimpse of economic understanding would sign a contract that is prepayment for him but best endeavors for the other party. As a company you would simply not be able to sign such a contract because the auditor will have you write of your entire payment as loss immediately as you can not activate an unspecified debt by someone else as assets. (Fun fact: If AZ would really have negotiated such a contract they’ll have to pay lots of taxes as the same way they have to immediately book the whole payment as profit as they can’t activate an unspecified debt as liability).
So there are not so many possible realities:
- Either EU officials have been totally crazy signing such a contract,
- or the narrative here that it was prepayment on EU side but only best effort on AZ side is simply wrong
- or AZ just blackmailed the EU into a crazy contract because they knew that politically they can’t say no anyways.
In 2 of 3 possibilities the EU commission looks not that good.
Let me put it his way.
On one side we have scientists and production companies doing their best to develop a vaccine.
On the other side, we have bureaucrats and politicians who took three months longer than others to sign contracts bitching about lack of delivery of a vaccine they have yet to approve, and prohibiting delivery of stock before approval.
So now we have the people who have caused, and are still causing, an entirely unnecessary (paperwork) delay beating up those who have objective obstacles to production.
For those of us who work in software – this is like the client signing the contract late, not signing off the specification, and insisting on the original deadline. We all know how that ends, and there are terms for this kind of client, none of them polite.
With this attitude, we would sue NASA for not reaching the moon in Apollo 13, and the crew for damaging their equipment when improvising CO2 filter boxes.
Cobalt wrote:
For those of us who work in software – this is like the client signing the contract late, …
No – at least according to publicly available information it is more like a software vendor that is asking for prepayment of the full cost without agreeing to any kind of specification but just promising “we will deliver a really good piece of software as quickly as possible”.
It would be absolutely not the fault of the vendor but I assume in software there are not many customers who would sign such agreement.
you would simply not be able to sign such a contract because the auditor will have you write of your entire payment as loss immediately as you can not activate an unspecified debt by someone else as assets.
Not really; the auditor might perhaps put a provision in the Accounts, but payments for stuff which might never arrive are done quite often e.g. anytime you buy something from China, where there is a fair chance (a) the company goes bust before shipment or (b) the bank account you paid the money into is owned by a fraudster who has access to the company’s email 
But joking aside I would expect a payment on a “best effort” order would be simply refundable. The pharma co. isn’t going to keep the money if they can’t deliver at all. The difference between this and a normal purchase contract is that you can’t sue for non-performance or for a late performance. In my business we have fairly often refused a sale to a customer who had dodgy clauses e.g. penalty for late delivery, consequential damages, or what amounted to an on-site warranty in the Far East on a product worth £89. No prudent businessman is going to fulfil a purchase order with clauses like that; because it could wipe out his company.
More to the point, how would this Pfizer-embargo work? The EU does not have a police force or an army. Brussels would have to issue a Directive to Belgium to use their police or army to blockade Pfizer’s factory so stuff could not be shipped to the UK. They would also have to prevent helicopters landing in Pfizer’s car park. In reality simply ordering Pfizer to shop shipments to the UK would be enough but it would be quite a scene, which would go down in history as the biggest thing in Europe since 1939-45 and it would never be forgotten. It would weaken Brussels massively by exposing it as a bully, because the whole reason for this is that some politicians caused a ~3 month delay, and that part is not in doubt.
BTW Britain bought up vaccine from a number of sources and would have paid for them regardless of whether they were ever approved.
