EU making a pigs breakfast of vaccination programme

TommyPlus said:
Understood, so why the incredulity (not from you) about the EU refusing to export any doses? I think it's more nuanced than you think.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the UK deal is with Pfizer or the EU one. Haven't seen anything on it. If we had a similar deal where the manufacture of the product started when we signed the contract and the EU banned it's export that would be hugely immoral behaviour.

We have a deal with moderna. From what I have read they are shipping to the EU but the UK will not be getting it until Spring. I assume the boot is on the other foot in this case and we put in an order later than the EU. If it was manufactured in the UK and we stopped it from being exported would that not be appalling behaviour on our part?

This just looks like a political stink being kicked up because the EU have been slower to vaccinate than the UK and the US.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I'm not sure what the UK deal is with Pfizer or the EU one. Haven't seen anything on it. If we had a similar deal where the manufacture of the product started when we signed the contract and the EU banned it's export that would be hugely immoral behaviour.

We have a deal with moderna. From what I have read they are shipping to the EU but the UK will not be getting it until Spring. I assume the boot is on the other foot in this case and we put in an order later than the EU. If it was manufactured in the UK and we stopped it from being exported would that not be appalling behaviour on our part?

This just looks like a political stink being kicked up because the EU have been slower to vaccinate than the UK and the US.
Click to expand...
Hard to argue with law enforcement like your good self. I genuinely fear for civil unrest in Europe over the next few weeks.
 
There's also a counter argument by EU officials that the UK site (Which has a much higher yield) is as efficient as it is on the back of the funds received from the up-front payment from the EU. Stella Kyriakides also cites a moral obligation to supply the EU rather than ensuring high numbers are rolled out in the UK.

It is getting very messy and I don't know where this is going to lead. Are Boris Et al going to ignore this plea and continue as planned, or cut them a slice to keep the peace?
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I'm not sure what the UK deal is with Pfizer or the EU one. Haven't seen anything on it. If we had a similar deal where the manufacture of the product started when we signed the contract and the EU banned it's export that would be hugely immoral behaviour.

We have a deal with moderna. From what I have read they are shipping to the EU but the UK will not be getting it until Spring. I assume the boot is on the other foot in this case and we put in an order later than the EU. If it was manufactured in the UK and we stopped it from being exported would that not be appalling behaviour on our part?

This just looks like a political stink being kicked up because the EU have been slower to vaccinate than the UK and the US.
Click to expand...
Try telling some people that on here - apparently the EU are entitled to do what they want as they are a “super power” god give me strength!
 
Doom_On_Horseback said:
There's also a counter argument by EU officials that the UK site (Which has a much higher yield) is as efficient as it is on the back of the funds received from the up-front payment from the EU. Stella Kyriakides also cites a moral obligation to supply the EU rather than ensuring high numbers are rolled out in the UK.

It is getting very messy and I don't know where this is going to lead. Are Boris Et al going to ignore this plea and continue as planned, or cut them a slice to keep the peace?
Click to expand...
When they say "up-front payment from the EU" what they are saying is money from the UK's EU contributions as the UK were the second highest contributor to the EU coffers. Also we have just paid an eye watering "divorce" bill so we (i.e.. the whole of the UK and all who sail in her) owe the EU sweet FA.
How on earth can the EU cite "moral obligation" whilst threatening to prevent supplies from Europe coming to the UK.

They are showing their true colours on this one.
 
I would like to see an agreement so we can get the most vulnerable vaccinated across the world first. That said the EU dropped the ball here, no other way of looking at it, I dont think.
 
Konrad_the_Barbarian said:
When they say "up-front payment from the EU" what they are saying is money from the UK's EU contributions as the UK were the second highest contributor to the EU coffers. Also we have just paid an eye watering "divorce" bill so we (i.e.. the whole of the UK and all who sail in her) owe the EU sweet FA.
How on earth can the EU cite "moral obligation" whilst threatening to prevent supplies from Europe coming to the UK.

They are showing their true colours on this one.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending them. Just trying to play devil's advocate. It seems to be getting messy either way.
 
Still think Brexit was a huge mistake, but the EU are coming out of this situation looking awful.

Their own mistakes have led to this, and they're using threats to try and solve it.
 
FatCat said:
Try telling some people that on here - apparently the EU are entitled to do what they want as they are a “super power” god give me strength!
Click to expand...

I see you're back after not providing any evidence for your previous smears.

Anyway - nobody has said they're entitled to do it, nor that they should, nor that their conduct is anything other than self serving. But international relations isn't about what's right and fair, it's about who's the biggest bast@rd in the playground.
 
One thing I find a little puzzling is that they're complaining about not getting the desired amount of the AstraZeneca vaccine but they haven't even approved it yet - and according to some reports emanating from Germany they might not approve it at all.

So as it stands, even if AZ could supply the full amount the EU is talking about right now, it couldn't be used as it is not an approved product.

Shouldn't they wait until the vaccine is actually eligible for use in the EU, before they complain about not getting enough of it? Theoretically, if the EMA takes long enough to grant approval, AZ might have solved their supply problems by then.

Of course they might approve it within the next few days (but they also might not).
 
LaPennaBianca said:
I see you're back after not providing any evidence for your previous smears.

Anyway - nobody has said they're entitled to do it, nor that they should, nor that their conduct is anything other than self serving. But international relations isn't about what's right and fair, it's about who's the biggest bast@rd in the playground.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself is that consistent with your views when the brexit deal was being negotiated, no it is not.”international relations isn’t about what’s right” your own words yet when the UK were even thinking about breaking international law you amongst others were losing it on here - as I said it’s hypocritical. I shall look forward to you weasel words explaining this one away.
 
FatCat said:
Ask yourself is that consistent with your views when the brexit deal was being negotiated, no it is not.”international relations isn’t about what’s right” your own words yet when the UK were even thinking about breaking international law you amongst others were losing it on here - as I said it’s hypocritical. I shall look forward to you weasel words explaining this one away.
Click to expand...


Well, it is.

International relations and international law are two different things. The latter is so important because the former is so brutal. Hence why breaking the latter should have such dire consequences.

I think it's absolutely astonishing that I have the explain this and that you think that's a gotcha?

And in that case - the UK backed down, removed all the offending articles band put a border in the middle of its territory, because the EU told it to. That's asymmetry of power. That's the reality of Brexit - we trashed our reputation for nothing and still had to eat ****.
 
We've benefitted with the vaccine as our government are chancers, they UK took a chance on covid cases (allowing shopping and meeting up at before and during Christmas) and it backfired massively (well, not backfired, I think they expected it, but won't say they did), so they had to approve the vaccine to try and limit the onslaught of cases and deaths that was coming in January.

Deaths were going to go up, so they needed something to go up alongside that to counter it. They prefer it this way as the economic boost from November and December will assist them. If they had less deaths and no vaccine, and no shops open in November and December it would have played out worse in the media (and economically), but would have saved lives (which they chose not to do).

The reward for early vaccine approval was always going to far outweigh the risk, especially for the over 70's and vulnerable, in any circumstance, especially after the first trial data showed little to no issues. They would have had millions of people more vaccinated if they offered it out on a "take this at your own risk" basis, although this does not seem to be the done thing.

The EU have just been beaten in the queue, and are now doing what they can to try and claw that back, it's how any country or organisation would be. I don't blame them, but I don't think this should have been an EU project either mind, unless it was 100% EU funded as an "extra". Countries should have had their own back up plan, and some seem to have.
 
MolteniArcore said:
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. We were subject to EU rules and still approved the vaccine as any EU country could have done. I think if we had remained in the EU due to the very high infection rates we were suffering we would have taken the same course of action anyway.

There seems to be lots of issues affecting the roll out on the Continent and not just the fact it's 'THE EVIL EU'. Look at France, the public won't take it for example.

I am no fan of this Government but it would appear that they are doing a great job of rolling the vaccine out. There are questions still over how wise it is to hold the 2nd jab back for so long, especially as it looks like this will be a long lockdown, but as it stands chapeau the Government (y)

You do wonder though if they hadn't locked down late the last two times would we be needing to rush the vaccine out and make people wait 12 weeks for their 2nd dose, but that's a separate discussion.

The EU need to sort it out though, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

I've just started the thread hence referring back to an early post but agree with this mate. Why can't people get out of their trenches on both sides and just acknowledge the truth? Some people are like school kids.

It's very possible for Brexit to be a shambles, the government to have been awful and for the EU to be lagging behind all at the same time. This government are the worst, most self serving (you might say corrupt) I've ever known. Thankfully one thing they have gotten right is the vaccine. Long may it continue
 
I don't think it has much to do with vaccine approval. It's about the manufacturing capacity being built up when the contracts were signed. That was a decision taken in the summer rather than December.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I don't think it has much to do with vaccine approval. It's about the manufacturing capacity being built up when the contracts were signed. That was a decision taken in the summer rather than December.
Click to expand...
In summer, probably even back in April they knew a second wave was coming in winter, as all the experts did, and equally they probably knew they were going to be opening the shops and letting people have a Christmas, or knew people would have a Christmas regardless of what the government said. Most will know that Christmas day has had a massive impact, it's impossible for it not to have done.

The vaccines were always going to be a massive, massive reward for minimal risk, especially for those over 70. From a risk assessment point of view they should have been made as early as the manufacturing was possible to be ready to make it (which by the looks of it, it was). We have made the right decision, putting manufacturing in place early and approving early, I can't get my head around why the others didn't, even as singularities. I can't even get my head around why we didn't do it sooner (unless that was a manufacturing or manufacturer decision), ie approve it when it's made in numbers, not approve before it's made in numbers.

Everyone knew the second wave was coming, and everyone knew any of the vaccines would save more that they harmed, even if they were terrible (by vaccine standards), technology and medicine is too good now, for the reward to be lower than the risk for the at risk groups. If I was over 70 I would literally have took any of them that the manufacturers thought were good enough to be trialled, for potentially billions of doses to be made.

I think we knew we were going to approve it (them), long before it (they) were approved, and the approval and vaccine influence would have been variables in the modelling, just wish it could have been done in November, to have helped over Christmas.
 
The issue is down to the promised delivery date of the vaccine on the EU order and the AZ failure to honour it due to production problems, they feel AZ have reneged on a promise that vaccines would be supplied from all plants including those in Britain and not just based in Europe, if the boot was on the other foot then we'd be equally upset as the EU are, they invested in infrastructure to roll out the numbers promised that have been cut by 2/5's. It's a surprising commercial decision by AZ and until the fine print of the contract is revealed then we won't know the detail of what condition's the EU agreed in terms of supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top