Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
It very much does.

Mind you, the deafening silence from Adonis, AC Grayling, Campbell, et al is very welcome.
Long may that continue!
 
An unpopular view:

Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?

But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
 
With so many countries needing the vaccine and the eye watering quantities being ordered at different dates by these countries how in hell's name are the vaccines going to rationed fairly ?????? Contract or no contract and only limited supplies.
 
An unpopular view:

Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?

But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
Well if the UK ordered the vaccines first and started the process to allow them to be used before they were even ready to be delivered, while all the rest sat and twiddled their thumbs, then why not?
 
An unpopular view:

Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?

But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
If you ordered a car and was told delivery will be in 6 months time and then 3 months later someone orders the exact same spec car and is given yours a month later would you be pissed?
 
If you ordered a car and was told delivery will be in 6 months time and then 3 months later someone orders the exact same spec car and is given yours a month later would you be pissed?
If only life was so simple.
 
An unpopular view:

Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?

But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
Surely anyone involved in agreeing the various contracts for orders , on both sides, would have quite definite clauses for when and how many.( I would imagine it wasn't the trainee buyer and the CEO's secretary who agreed the contracts.) Any country trying to get more than their fare share , by whatever means, will surely be vilified by the rest of the world.
 
An unpopular view:

Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?

But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
Were the eu perhaps keeping their options open?
Were the eu perhaps hedging their bets and placing smaller orders here and there?
Were the eu perhaps hanging back while other true nations took the chances on ordering and using vaccines, in case they proved to be risky in themselves?

Unfortunately it may be that the eu have gambled with the health of the populations of their member states.

To beat this thing the world must overcome. But in the shorter term protecting the population of the UK seems favourite. If vaccination works then our resistance to internationally reintroduction seems intelligent.

I'm surprised that Bo Jo is playing this down. "I don't know why your blaming me for so much, the bullies in Brussels (and Berlin) have done far worse. I'm a hero by comparrison."
Maybe he's saving that for later.
 
More importantly, the UK ordered the Astra Zenaca vaccine 3 months before the EU, add to that, the EU have not even cleared it for use yet, so are they just going to have it sitting in fridges until they decide it can be used? Or are they just trying to stop the UK vaccinating the whole population while they flail about like amateurs?
 
France's abandonment of it's vaccine development hasn't helped , I wonder how many advance orders the EU placed with the Pasteur Institute.
 
France's abandonment of it's vaccine development hasn't helped , I wonder how many advance orders the EU placed with the Pasteur Institute.
Apparently they placed orders with 6 different companies, but have only given 2 of them clearance to be used.
This means they have a big shortfall and now Hungary has resorted to try and get the vaccine from Russia instead.
They're blaming the UK and the US, and anyone else caught in the crossfire for their own inaction.
 
An unpopular view:

Are we expecting UK leaders to secure vaccines for our own population first, even if it means that other countries will go short?

But we are enraged when EU leaders try to do the same for their citizens?
we are not enraged that EU is trying to secure vaccines .. we are enraged that they are trying to steal our allocations which we secured with forethought, testing and planning

they are trying to steal our lunch

they are blaming everyone but themselves

they are in this situation because they did not plan well, or did not allow enough contingency in their planning

of course the UK Government's first duty is to its own citizens.

why shouldn't we reap the benefits of our own endeavours?
 
I was taught not to use the term "best endeavours/efforts" in contracts as that can be interpreted as you will deliver! Much better to say "reasonable endeavours/efforts".
Correct.

the last thing any customer should accept is reasonable efforts as that is a much lower effort of trying than best efforts

will or shall means you must do what you said you would; otherwise it is breach of contract
 
Surely anyone involved in agreeing the various contracts for orders , on both sides, would have quite definite clauses for when and how many.( I would imagine it wasn't the trainee buyer and the CEO's secretary who agreed the contracts.) Any country trying to get more than their fare share , by whatever means, will surely be vilified by the rest of the world.
No.

Because the whole production process was new, with new vaccine; it is simply commercially stupid to agree to will deliver X on Y when you are unsure about your production capability
 
No.

Because the whole production process was new, with new vaccine; it is simply commercially stupid to agree to will deliver X on Y when you are unsure about your production capability
That is probably true, so how can the EU insist that they are being short changed ? Somebody's dropped a clanger somewhere.
 
So... is 'fair share' simply based on whoever booked it first? Or should 'fair share' perhaps be based on some equal-distribution principle? Or maybe based on need?
 
So... is 'fair share' simply based on whoever booked it first? Or should 'fair share' perhaps be based on some equal-distribution principle? Or maybe based on need?
Interesting question with no easy answer.

However, because (we are told) vaccination doesn't allow a society to "open up" until a critical mass are vaccinated (anything between 60% and 80% depending upon the source) this is a bit like the old "how do you allocate your dockers to unload two ships that arrive together" question. The answer to that, of course, is that you do not allocate them 50/50 to the ships, but all of them to one ship first as that will be productive again in half the time, and the second ship - although sat waiting while the first is unloaded - ends up productive at exactly the same time it would have done if you'd applied 50% of the available resource to it as soon as it arrived.

I realise that this is an oversimplification as there are other factors in play such as elements of the population having reduced risk of death as soon as they themselves are vaccinated, but "fair share" won't be on some arbitrary "equal distribution" model, whatever politicians who have managed to mire themselves in a mess of their own making would have you believe.
 
so how can the EU insist that they are being short changed ?
Because it's easier to scapegoat someone else than it is to admit that the actions you took were deeply flawed?

From reading around, my understanding of the situation (which may turn out to be incorrect or incomplete) is:
  • The UK and USA both provided massively greater funding per capita to the biotech companies than the EU did to fund the R&D phase for vaccines. Seven times the amount of the EU, it is reported
  • Early last year, Oxford had started work on the supply chain for their vaccine, with the agreement with AstraZeneca (AZ) to make and supply the vaccine in volume struck in May 2020
  • The UK government agreement with AZ gives the UK first priority on all the vaccine produced in UK
  • AZ piggy-backed off the work that Oxford had already undertaken, allowing them to accelerate ramping up production and iron out low yield issues in UK facilities
  • In June 2020, AZ reached a preliminary agreement with Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy for supply, based on its agreement with the UK
  • The EU then insisted that those countries could not formalise the deal, and the European Commission took over the contract negotiations resulting in another two months of negotiations (during which AZ say there was no material change to the terms) before the contract was signed at the end of August
  • This resulted in AZ's supply chain ramp up for production destined for the EU 3 months behind that for the UK
  • It is reported that during the "lost" 3 months, the EU was haggling over prices and trying to drive hard bargains on indemnity. Remember that AZ's agreement with Oxford is that they manufacture and supply the vaccine on a non-profit basis, so it's hard to see what the EU thought it was going to achieve
 
For many, maybe more so in the eu now, it may well be that natural immunity from exposure will occur pretty much as fast as that achieved by vaccine immunisation.

W/o a programme of large scale anti body testing we'll never know,
and neither can the various Gov't's prioritise who to vaccinate for better efficacy.
That would have possibility of earlier resolution to what is becoming a vaccine shortage political battle. For example it may well be that Italy is well on the way to immunisation already, by natural means.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom