Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

#91

Post by rvieira »

fighterpilot wrote: post #80
rvieira wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we got a very inward and reactionary response (lockdowns etc) [...] it's probably a consequence of having mostly lawyers in charge I disagree. Lockdowns were not proposed by lawyers or politicians, but rather the scientific community. In fact, in countries were the scientific advice was ignored, you had the fewest restrictions. Also, "At the beginning of the pandemic, there should've been overwhelming support for t…

Look, I'm not trying to argue that lockdowns were a bad idea or what have you. Just that they were the easiest cognitively for non-technical politicians. The hard, longer-term work of building out local vaccine manufacturing and distribution wasn't done because it required way more foresight, executive planning ability and basic scientific/medical knowledge. The other contributing factor is that politicians don't wan…

Lockdowns _did_ have a non-technical interpretation. The main purpose was to avoid everyone getting sick at the same time so that hospitals wouldn't run out of beds.

I think the main problem with politicians was that they hesitated because they wanted to have two contradictory things: lockdowns to slow down the pandemic (until vaccines were ready) and keeping the economy going "as normal". IMO you can't square that circle.

Re: EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

#92

Post by JI00912 »

mort96 wrote: post #48
JI00912 wrote: post #25

> the point of the legal proceedings is to make it mandatory for AstraZeneca to provide the doses set out in its EU contract The point of a contract is always that fulfilling the contract is mandatory. That said, legal proceedings won't make anything go faster any more than other attempts at what sounds like plan economy.

I don't understand how you could possibly call this an attempt at plan economy, unless you consider all solicitation of a product by a government to be plan economy? How is this fundamentally any different from the US's purchasing of doses from BioNTech/Pfizer? I'm sure the US would take legal action against Pfizer if they weren't delivering doses according to the agreement?

Because the doses provided are a function of how well the tool chain works and not of weather or not they have to meet a particular target or at what level the target is set.

Re: EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

#93

Post by JI00912 »

raverbashing wrote: post #58
mort96 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how you could possibly call this an attempt at plan economy, unless you consider all solicitation of a product by a government to be plan economy? How is this fundamentally any different from the US's purchasing of doses from BioNTech/Pfizer? I'm sure the US would take legal action against Pfizer if they weren't delivering doses according to the agreement?

> How is this fundamentally any different from the US's purchasing of doses from BioNTech/Pfizer? It isn't. It's just that "euroskeptics" will distort arguments for the sole purpose of hating and dividing

You're spreading prejudice, conspiracy theories and hatred.

Re: EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

#94

Post by Sosh101 »

jpxw wrote: post #68
Sosh101 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In many EU countries, the vaccine was banned for large segments of the population for extended periods of time. Also happened in Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Norway, Iceland, and some African countries.

Yes, and it was just as incorrect/unscientific in those places too, but we’re discussing the EU here.

> but we’re discussing the EU here.

Yes I know. You seem to be insinuating that it's all the EUs fault, and so I wanted to provide a bit of perspective.

Re: EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

#95

Post by raverbashing »

corty wrote: post #59
wwosik wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the US maybe?

No, Germany: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/__60.html Don't know about the US situation.

I'm reading this but the "non-recommended" part is kinda tricky.

It would be one thing to, let's say, get vaccinated with a non-approved vaccine and claim damage, otherwise, unless, let's say AZ is excluded and maybe simply not "preferred" then it should be ok - as per 1. 1. which ok uses "empfohlen" (recommended/endorsed) so maybe it could be argued but I think it's more in favour of being in the scope rather than not

Re: EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

#96

Post by Slartie »

jimmydorry wrote: post #89
Slartie wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing manufacturing capacity is happening. BioNTech as the most important producer in Europe has brought multiple additional partners into production as well as an entire new plant, which by itself is churning out 1 billion doses per year when fully operational (they're still scaling up production there AFAIK, but have been shipping doses from there since April). Also, the CureVac vaccine is expected to be autho…

I would need to refresh myself on the specifics, but either Italy or the EU itself blocked shipments of AstraZeneca from Italy to Australia. I recall France saying they would do the same as this came to a head. To say that the EU as a whole wouldn’t block exporting is a bit premature when we already have precedent.

The EU has exported 113,5 million doses as of April 13, according to Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/eu-vaccin...

This is in stark contrast to 0.25 million doses AstraZeneca vaccines that were blocked, which is what you are referring to. That has been the only blocked export as of now, at least according to my information.

We may thus indeed have precedent, but it's a very specific precedent which doesn't really serve as an example for a broad vaccine export ban. That's because the legislation on which this precedent was based does only allow such action in the first place if the manufacturer is lacking behind in serving the existing contracts with the EU (a situation in which AstraZeneca is in, but not BioNTech/Pfizer, the top exporter by number of doses in Europe) or if the target of the shipment is a country that is significantly ahead in its domestic vaccination campaign when compared with the EU. This means that there isn't even suitable legislation to instantiate a broad export ban in the EU right now, but just for smaller, more targeted bans; of course this would ultimately not pose an insurmountable hurdle as EU legislation can be changed by the EU itself, but it sends a pretty clear signal that a blanket ban on exports is nothing that's even considered right now.

Re: EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

#97

Post by corty »

raverbashing wrote: post #95
corty wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Germany: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/__60.html Don't know about the US situation.

I'm reading this but the "non-recommended" part is kinda tricky. It would be one thing to, let's say, get vaccinated with a non-approved vaccine and claim damage, otherwise, unless, let's say AZ is excluded and maybe simply not "preferred" then it should be ok - as per 1. 1. which ok uses "empfohlen" (recommended/endorsed) so maybe it could be argued but I think it's more in favour of being in the scope rather than n…

The "empfohlen" (recommended) in the law is usually fulfilled by the vaccination being officially recommended in the vaccination list by the STIKO of the RKI (roughly the vaccine working group of the German disease control office). But the STIKO very explicitly does not recommend AZ under the age of 60.

The Laender (states) may also recommend a vaccine, deviating from the federal STIKO recommendation. But they didn't really do that either, the wording is always very unclear and weasely around AZ. In several press statements, the phrase "auf eigene Gefahr" (at your own peril) has also occured. So I would wait for a clarification.

Edit: medical professionals seem similarly confused about the matter, KVNO is very roughly speaking a doctors guild: https://coronavirus.nrw/haftungsausschluss-bei-impfung-mit-a...

Re: EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

#98

Post by rsynnott »

jarmitage wrote: post #4

Does anyone know why all of the geopolitical discourse in the UK and Europe has been around arguing over a small supply, rather than about increasing manufacturing capacity?

It has, and Pfizer and Biontec in particular have scaled up production quite effectively (delivering more than originally committed). AstraZeneca is fairly dramatically behind on production (delivered about 33% of commitments in the EU so far), and at this point it feels like the European Commission has basically abandoned it; its contract is apparently not getting renewed.

Re: EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

#99

Post by gnfargbl »

ben_w wrote: post #81
fighterpilot wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really do have to segment by age groups when doing this analysis.

Would it change the conclusion? I can’t find good age-specific fatality rates for either thanks to all the search results being polluted with news about controversy rather than actual science, but the baseline pre-COVID stats I’ve seen for the incidence rate of venous thromboembolism in the USA is 30/100k/y in 25-35 year olds and 300-500/100k/y in 70-79 year olds. Again, that’s the rate it was happening already (well…

I have linked to this before but I like it so much I will link to it again: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

The TL;DR is that for people 20-29, in the case where there is a low level of Covid-19 expected to be circulating in the community ("low" meaning incidence of around 2 in 10,000), the balance of risk vs harm is against taking the AZ vaccine if offered. In every other case (older age group or higher incidence of covid), the balance is in favour of AZ. Of course, this doesn't account for the possibility that the patient has a choice of vaccines.

Re: EU preparing legal case against AstraZeneca over vaccine shortfalls

#100

Post by rsynnott »

blfr wrote: post #53

The quality of leadership has really declined. Western countries seem to be run exclusively by petty managers. There's almost no "we shall fight them on the beaches" or "not because they are easy but because they are hard" and way more process, lawsuits, committees, etc. As it turns out, you need some charisma and vision to effectively do things.

> There's almost no "we shall fight them on the beaches" or "not because they are easy but because they are hard" and way more process, lawsuits, committees, etc.

Are you... suggesting dealing with AZ's failure to deliver by storming their offices, or something? Like, what is the actual actionable thing that the EC should be doing here, other than legal action?

Post reply on HN