They are. The slight differences in price are down to local cost differences in the supply chain.
National News The Brexit Thread 🇬🇧🇪🇺
- Thread starter Peterdev
- Start date
They are. The slight differences in price are down to local cost differences in the supply chain.
m
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 8,300
Quite.
AZ can be providing at cost while the UK pays more per shot than anyone else.
This isn't a stick to beat anyone with of course.
bazzer9461
God like member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 40,614
I don’t about PP or JRM I’m sure they will want what’s fair as I don’t think any members of Parliament wants the U.K. to become known as a pariah over our distribution of the vaccine.
I'm sure I read somewhere, but can't remember where (senior moment!) that surplus vaccines bought by the UK will be given free of charge to poorer nations, but obviously they only become surplus once the vaccination of the UK is completed so won't be until the back end of this year best case. I also believe the EU is intending to do the same with their surplus too.
OUFCGav
Well-known member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,324
OUFCGav
Well-known member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,324
yes. the UK has ordered 357million doses of Covid vaccines of 7 different types. paid for up front before development complete/approval given. The UK population is roughly 67 million. So we will have paid for approx 223million doses we won't require directly (though some of the ordered vaccines may not work/pass regulatory approval) and will be passed on.
OUFCGav
Well-known member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,324
nope, down to the deal negotiated by the country. Only developing countries will get at cost.
bazzer9461
God like member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 40,614
From what was said on the news was that the Eu was trying to negotiate a cheaper price which when considering the Eu were offered the AstraZeneca at the same price as the U.K.
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,271
Shall we wait for the usual suspects to suggest that is cronyism or a waste of taxpayers money?
Moral dilemma - do we send the "surplus" to the EU or developing countries as aid?
I`ll go with the latter.
Well AZ CEO disagrees with you according to what EY posted (and if it is real) earlier:
“The suggestion we sell to other countries to make more money is not right because we make no profit everywhere.That's the approach we took and we agreed on that. That’s the agreement we have with Oxford University. It's actually even written in a contract we have with Oxford University: that we will be at no profit. We have slightly different prices from one geographic to the other because the cost of goods may be different. We have a supply chain in Brazil, we have another one in Latin America, another one in South Asia. We have one in Japan. Of course, you know, local costs are different. So you've got slight variations, but more or less, it's about three to four dollars, more or less everywhere. It makes no difference. Zero difference. I understand we all want to be vaccinated. I think the populations of Europe, like everywhere else in the world, have been under so much stress with this pandemic for so long now, for a year or so, that people are tired. And I think the people who didn't want to be vaccinated maybe six months ago are now saying: "I want to be vaccinated". You have a lot of people who want to be vaccinated".
AZ, Oxford Uni etc will only profit once the pandemic is declared over, so all countries are getting it at cost until that time:
COVID-19: The multi-billion pound business of the Oxford vaccine
A leading researcher on the vaccine insisted it was made not-for-profit during the pandemic, but could earn millions after.
news.sky.com
OUFCGav
Well-known member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,324
think he may be stretching the truthWell AZ CEO disagrees with you according to what EY posted (and if it is real) earlier:
“The suggestion we sell to other countries to make more money is not right because we make no profit everywhere.That's the approach we took and we agreed on that. That’s the agreement we have with Oxford University. It's actually even written in a contract we have with Oxford University: that we will be at no profit. We have slightly different prices from one geographic to the other because the cost of goods may be different. We have a supply chain in Brazil, we have another one in Latin America, another one in South Asia. We have one in Japan. Of course, you know, local costs are different. So you've got slight variations, but more or less, it's about three to four dollars, more or less everywhere. It makes no difference. Zero difference. I understand we all want to be vaccinated. I think the populations of Europe, like everywhere else in the world, have been under so much stress with this pandemic for so long now, for a year or so, that people are tired. And I think the people who didn't want to be vaccinated maybe six months ago are now saying: "I want to be vaccinated". You have a lot of people who want to be vaccinated".
AZ, Oxford Uni etc will only profit once the pandemic is declared over, so all countries are getting it at cost until that time:
COVID-19: The multi-billion pound business of the Oxford vaccine
A leading researcher on the vaccine insisted it was made not-for-profit during the pandemic, but could earn millions after.
Vaccine deal allows AstraZeneca to take up to 20% on top of costs
Drugmaker says non-manufacturing expenses will exceed $1bn in Oxford virus project
www.ft.com
AZ, Oxford Uni etc will only profit once the pandemic is declared over, so all countries are getting it at cost until that time:
COVID-19: The multi-billion pound business of the Oxford vaccine
A leading researcher on the vaccine insisted it was made not-for-profit during the pandemic, but could earn millions after.
I'll be honest, I'm surprised that the terms of the Oxford-AZ deal are in the public sphere like that. On most occasions, the two sides are pretty keen to keep license terms under wraps.
If it's correct, it's a much better deal than I thought they would get.....probably OSI (the venture firm that invests in Oxford spinouts) leaned on them not to give it away, as they said they were going to do back in April! It suggests that Oxford got a $10m up front, and $80m in milestone payments (and I would expect that getting the drug approved would be at least one of those milestones), so sounds like Oxford Uni are profiting already.
stokeu
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,674
It doesn't matter when the contract was signed, it matters when delivery has been agreed within the contract.
bazzer9461
God like member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 40,614
It also that has been mentioned that the contract states other obligations take precedence ie U.K. first
If I was writing the contract with the EU for AZ, I would have insisted that it said that somewhere. Just something to make sure that both parties acknowledge that there is already a contract in place between AZ and the UK, and whatever AZ's delivery obligations are from that contract (to the extent that they can be shared).
But if it does say that, then I wonder why the EU are so gung-ho about "Let's publish the contract"? Because it would completely torpedo the arguments that the EU are making, and make them look like idiots.
So just to put a bow on this conversation - the EU did publish the contract with AstraZeneca today
As you can probably tell from my obsession on this thread, I see and draft a lot of these types of technology contracts as part of my job, and from the point of view of AZ wanting to protect themselves when things go wrong (which, really, is the whole point of putting a long contract in place), this is a really shitty effort!
First, they promise to use Best Reasonable Efforts to produce the vaccine at manufacturing sites that explicitly includes the UK (Clause 5.4); then they never once mention the possibility that they have other contractual obligations that may impede their ability to fulfill this contract and - worse than that - they actually warrant (Clause 13.1(e)) that they are not under any contractual obligation that would impede the complete fulfillment of their obligations.
I'm not a lawyer, I certainly don't know much about Belgian law (which is the legal jurisdiction both parties have agreed to here) and I'm sure that AZ do have top lawyers that will have some good strategies for getting out from under this - but, having now read the contact, I've even more convinced that any law firms that do business with the EU would be salivating at the prospect of going after AZ on this.......
As you can probably tell from my obsession on this thread, I see and draft a lot of these types of technology contracts as part of my job, and from the point of view of AZ wanting to protect themselves when things go wrong (which, really, is the whole point of putting a long contract in place), this is a really shitty effort!
First, they promise to use Best Reasonable Efforts to produce the vaccine at manufacturing sites that explicitly includes the UK (Clause 5.4); then they never once mention the possibility that they have other contractual obligations that may impede their ability to fulfill this contract and - worse than that - they actually warrant (Clause 13.1(e)) that they are not under any contractual obligation that would impede the complete fulfillment of their obligations.
I'm not a lawyer, I certainly don't know much about Belgian law (which is the legal jurisdiction both parties have agreed to here) and I'm sure that AZ do have top lawyers that will have some good strategies for getting out from under this - but, having now read the contact, I've even more convinced that any law firms that do business with the EU would be salivating at the prospect of going after AZ on this.......
So just to put a bow on this conversation - the EU did publish the contract with AstraZeneca today
As you can probably tell from my obsession on this thread, I see and draft a lot of these types of technology contracts as part of my job, and from the point of view of AZ wanting to protect themselves when things go wrong (which, really, is the whole point of putting a long contract in place), this is a really shitty effort!
First, they promise to use Best Reasonable Efforts to produce the vaccine at manufacturing sites that explicitly includes the UK (Clause 5.4); then they never once mention the possibility that they have other contractual obligations that may impede their ability to fulfill this contract and - worse than that - they actually warrant (Clause 13.1(e)) that they are not under any contractual obligation that would impede the complete fulfillment of their obligations.
I'm not a lawyer, I certainly don't know much about Belgian law (which is the legal jurisdiction both parties have agreed to here) and I'm sure that AZ do have top lawyers that will have some good strategies for getting out from under this - but, having now read the contact, I've even more convinced that any law firms that do business with the EU would be salivating at the prospect of going after AZ on this.......
Following the tradition of Twitter links:
Also this:
Last edited:
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,271
The UK/AZ contract is different to the EU one by some distance and precludes AZ from taking "UK Stock" to make up the difference elsewhere, until the UK contract is fulfilled.
