The EU v UK vaccine tussle

[glazbagun]

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

You mean it tries to take a neutral tone and is thus better written for it?

[don'tbesilly]

Interesting read from Politico:

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus...

[chrispmartha]

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

Isn't that good thing?

[Not-The-Messiah]

chrispmartha said:

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

Isn't that good thing?

It is if they do would do the same with groups, people and other things they don't like. They don't.

If it was the other way round they would be very critical of the UK government and be giving high praise to the EU on how fantastic they are.

[Electro1980]

Not-The-Messiah said:

chrispmartha said:

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

Isn't that good thing?

It is if they do would do the same with groups, people and other things they don't like. They don't.

If it was the other way round they would be very critical of the UK government and be giving high praise to the EU on how fantastic they are.

Are you going to criticise the DM for the same behaviour?

[chrispmartha]

Not-The-Messiah said:

chrispmartha said:

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

Isn't that good thing?

It is if they do would do the same with groups, people and other things they don't like. They don't.

If it was the other way round they would be very critical of the UK government and be giving high praise to the EU on how fantastic they are.

And the Express, Mail etc are no different but in the opposite direction, it just seems a bit weird to criticise a neutral media report, when that seems to be what people want more of rather than biased output.

The Anti EU media are spinning this as a EU V UK issue when it really isn't its an EU V AZ issue.

[Troubleatmill]

chrispmartha said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

chrispmartha said:

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

Isn't that good thing?

It is if they do would do the same with groups, people and other things they don't like. They don't.

If it was the other way round they would be very critical of the UK government and be giving high praise to the EU on how fantastic they are.

And the Express, Mail etc are no different but in the opposite direction, it just seems a bit weird to criticise a neutral media report, when that seems to be what people want more of rather than biased output.

The Anti EU media are spinning this as a EU V UK issue when it really isn't its an EU V AZ issue.

It isn't even an EU V AZ issue.
The EU were late to the party, The responsibility lies solely with them.
It has been said far more eloquently on here than I put it.

[Pan Pan Pan]

chrispmartha said:

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

Isn't that good thing?

It would be if it was even handed, in `all' its news articles but it is not. so even the way they have treated this news has an element of bias, since they could not find it in themselves to praise the UK`s foresight in ordering the vaccine early.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 28th January 09:51

[chrispmartha]

Troubleatmill said:

It isn't even an EU V AZ issue.
The EU were late to the party, The responsibility lies solely with them.
It has been said far more eloquently on here than I put it.

Sorry I agree its not a Versus thing at all, (especially an EU Versus UK thing)

It's still an 'issue' between EU and AZ whoever's fault it is.

[chrispmartha]

Pan Pan Pan said:

chrispmartha said:

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

Isn't that good thing?

It would be if it was even handed, in `all' its news articles but it is no. so even the way they have treated this news has an element of bias, since they could not find it in themselves to praise the UK`s foresight in ordering the vaccine early.

So will you be criticising the Express & Mail?

[glazbagun]

Pan Pan Pan said:

chrispmartha said:

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

Isn't that good thing?

It would be if it was even handed, in `all' its news articles but it is no. so even the way they have treated this news has an element of bias, since they could not find it in themselves to praise the UK`s foresight in ordering the vaccine early.

So you mean that they are best at reporting failures of the EU because they are even-handed when they do so? Sounds like you have yourself a good news source for EU criticism.

[menousername]

Electro1980 said:

The factory location does have a bearing. The contracts are tied to supply chains and developing manufacturing facilities. Also the factory in the U.K. was developed and built with a lot of U.K. government funding and the factory doing the final fill has been specifically contracted by AZ to do the distribution to the U.K.

These contracts are incredibly complex and have all sorts of clauses and details on the full process of how it will be fulfilled.

The factories will have a bearing insofar as the contracts stipulate, and whether any particular factory sits under a different legal entity that was / was not party to the contract, I would have thought.

I am not a lawyer but I think it comes down to whether particular batches can be identified as the property of UK Govt vs the EU. And that requires the batches to be in existence already. How far any provision of where it is manufactured comes into play I do not know, nor what it means for future manufactured batches.

The EU seem keen to see contracts made public though. They seem to have confidence that would back their claims

[Pan Pan Pan]

chrispmartha said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

chrispmartha said:

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

Isn't that good thing?

It would be if it was even handed, in `all' its news articles but it is no. so even the way they have treated this news has an element of bias, since they could not find it in themselves to praise the UK`s foresight in ordering the vaccine early.

So will you be criticising the Express & Mail?

When necessary, which is better than the blind Guardian always good, Daily Mail always bad mantra, that some here seem to follow.

[chrispmartha]

Pan Pan Pan said:

the blind Guardian always good, Daily Mail always bad mantra, that some here seem to follow.

And if you can't see the exact same is true in the opposite direction that's your bias showing through.

[rxe]

It's the interesting conundrum of speed vs. accuracy.

If you let the Civil Service at it, then you'll never sign anything because the discussion will get hung up on what happens if the supplier fails to deliver the right colour of bottle.

Or you let people off the leash and let them try and sign contracts that they think will work.

If you do the latter you get contracts that occasionally fail horribly, and things like shipping deals with companies with no ships. And you get contracts like this, where it has gone well.

Edited by rxe on Thursday 28th January 10:03

[don'tbesilly]

Troubleatmill said:

chrispmartha said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

chrispmartha said:

Ian Geary said:

Regarding media opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/eu-c...

Today's guardian scrupulously avoids any praise of the UK government's actions, or condemnation of the EU.

Isn't that good thing?

It is if they do would do the same with groups, people and other things they don't like. They don't.

If it was the other way round they would be very critical of the UK government and be giving high praise to the EU on how fantastic they are.

And the Express, Mail etc are no different but in the opposite direction, it just seems a bit weird to criticise a neutral media report, when that seems to be what people want more of rather than biased output.

The Anti EU media are spinning this as a EU V UK issue when it really isn't its an EU V AZ issue.

It isn't even an EU V AZ issue.
The EU were late to the party, The responsibility lies solely with them.
It has been said far more eloquently on here than I put it.

You could read another Guardian article that lays out the situation, an article that picks up on "being late to the Party".

It's interesting that the EU is demanding that AZ publish the contract, the contract that the EC had sight of, and was the contract the EC signed off with AZ.

Why doesn't the EU just ask the EC to publish the contract, they (EC) surely must have a copy of the contract they signed.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan...

Bernd Lange
@berndlange
·
Jan 27
Yes, what exactly was agreed with #EU #AstraZeneca? Somehow does not match statements
@EU_Commission
. Best solution: Instead of blaming each other in the media, just make the contract public. Since #vaccine supposedly non-profit - what's the problem? #COVID19

https://twitter.com/berndlange/status/135435316579...

StefanieBolzen
@StefanieBolzen
Replying to
@StefanieBolzen
Drugmaker aims for 17m doses for EU in February & sees no proof for contractual breach due to 'best effort' agreement. 'Europe wanted to be supplied more or less at same time as UK, even though the contract was signed three months later' (3/4)

https://twitter.com/StefanieBolzen/status/13541464...

[amusingduck]

rxe said:

It's the interesting conundrum of speed vs. accuracy.

If you let the Civil Service at it, then you'll never sign anything because the discussion will get hung up on what happens if the supplier fails to deliver the right colour of bottle.

Or you let people off the leash and let them try and sign contracts that they think will work.

If you do the latter you get contracts that occasionally fail horribly, and things like shopping deals with companies with no ships. And you get contracts like this, where it has gone well.

How is it speed vs accuracy?

DE/NL/FR/IT negotiated a deal with AZ based on (or at least, very similar to) the UK-AZ agreement.

Then, the EU yanked the handbrake and said 'we take over now'.

Then, two months later, the EU signs the contract with no material difference to the deal that DE/NL/FR/IT negotiated with AZ.

Seems better described as efficiency vs beaurocracy.

[Pan Pan Pan]

chrispmartha said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

the blind Guardian always good, Daily Mail always bad mantra, that some here seem to follow.

And if you can't see the exact same is true in the opposite direction that's your bias showing through.

Except that I can see the blind bias, in the opposite direction from `some' Just depends on ones viewpoint doesn't it?.

[buggalugs]

I see the Guardian hasn’t figure out how to put a self loathing spin on this yet so they’re leading with a story about whether Boris should go to Scotland or not

[rxe]

amusingduck said:

How is it speed vs accuracy?

DE/NL/FR/IT negotiated a deal with AZ based on (or at least, very similar to) the UK-AZ agreement.

Then, the EU yanked the handbrake and said 'we take over now'.

Then, two months later, the EU signs the contract with no material difference to the deal that DE/NL/FR/IT negotiated with AZ.

Seems better described as efficiency vs beaurocracy.

It's quite simple.

The "traditional" way of doing this is to have exhaustive requirements, focus on value for money, and have thought through every failure scenario. I would imagine the EUs goal was to get a better deal (bigger scale) because they thought they had more negotiating skills. Turns out they didn't.

The "alternative" way of doing it is to trust the organisation you are dealing with and move a lot faster. Key aspects are defined, crazy stuff like unlimited liability is ignored.

When it works, everyone looks like a hero. When it doesn't work, then everyone says "why the hell did you sign that?"

Compare: Government signs a deal for a vaccine based on early results, at a time when there was a material possibility of failure. If AZN had cocked up their vaccine, then there would be howls of "how could the government be such a bunch of morons" and someone would work out that Boris' ex-wife had some AZN shares and it would be called a crony deal. Or - government waits until the vaccine is a bit more certain, tries to get better value for money and terms on failure. Takes longer, but then you have to wait in turn.