COVID Vaccine !
- Thread starter kingrollo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
roubaixtuesday
self serving virtue signaller
roubaixtuesday
self serving virtue signaller
@mjr note my view is shared by third parties.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57531064
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ure-urgent-120m-doses-of-oxford-covid-vaccine
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57531064
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ure-urgent-120m-doses-of-oxford-covid-vaccine
Rusty Nails
We remember
- Location
- Living in the slow lane
Afaics both sides feel vindicated by the judgement.
Nothing to see here, move on.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
@mjr - bbc said:
What exactly did the judge order?
"The judge at the Court of First Instance in Brussels ordered that AstraZeneca should deliver a total of 80.2m doses by 27 September.
"If the company fails to do so, the order says, it must pay a penalty of €10 (£8.5; $12) per dose not delivered.
"The EU's demand for 120m doses by the end of this month was not accepted.
"Welcoming the court order, AstraZeneca said it had already supplied more than 70m doses to the EU and would "substantially exceed" 80.2m doses by the end of June."
As @rt said: "pointless": expensive (assumed) expenditure on lawyers (funded by the fine member states) and minimal political benefit.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Entirely predictably, there were no 'victors', except the lawyers on both sides.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
BBC are not objective on this, but I ask the same question to you: does only the order matter, not the ruling too? Is close-passing not a crime if you are offered an education session instead of penalty or prosecution?
I have some sympathy with the view that no-one except lawyers truly win if it ends up in court, but this debacle has clarified that selling the same production capacity to two buyers is not "best efforts".
classic33
Leg End Member
Sticking with the close pass example.
If I were the party that had been the victim of a close pass, and with the case reaching court. I'd not consider it a victory if the offender were handed an education session, and not prosecuted.
I'd also consider it to have been a waste of time, and money, getting the case to court. There's no real winner.
If two orders are placed for the same product, a month apart, whose would you seek to fulfill first. Bearing in mind that one order may never be used before the shelf life has expired.
Last edited:
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
No crimes were committed in AZ's best and continuing efforts to supply many different customers, notably at no net profit (cf Pfizer/Moderna). A predicted supply rate was given to the EU to allow them to plan their world-beating vaccination programme (for which I hope van de Leyen gets all due credit) but no rates of supply were in the contract (having read it in January, with redactions exposed).
The two contracts (AZ-UK VTF and AZ-EU EMA) did not "sell the same production capacity" to two buyers. As we discussed so long ago, the predicted supply rate (ie x by date ddmmyyy) to the EU was not achievable despite AZ's best efforts because the plants in the EU, on which the predicted supplies depended, had initial (and unpredictable) capacity generation issues.
Is close passing a crime?
The two contracts (AZ-UK VTF and AZ-EU EMA) did not "sell the same production capacity" to two buyers. As we discussed so long ago, the predicted supply rate (ie x by date ddmmyyy) to the EU was not achievable despite AZ's best efforts because the plants in the EU, on which the predicted supplies depended, had initial (and unpredictable) capacity generation issues.
Is close passing a crime?
roubaixtuesday
self serving virtue signaller
Lol. Anyone who disagrees with you is "not objective"
An assertion without the slightest justification.
*If* the court had reached the conclusion that was what had happened, then it would surely have insisted the injured party were compensated. It did not.
You have no clue as to the difference between criminal and civil law, it seems.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
No, that's not it. Try finding many recent articles where the BBC takes a balanced view of a story involving the EU.
Never heard of pyrrhic victories, clearly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rusty Nails
We remember
- Location
- Living in the slow lane
What exactly is a balanced view, and who judges on that ?
Do you take a balanced view of anything to do with potential differences betweeen the EU and the UK, because afaics you just about always take the view that ‘EU right/UK wrong’ ?
This isn’t a directly Brexit or an antI-EU matter, just a contractual difference which has been sorted.
Andy in Germany
Guru
- Location
- Rottenburg am Neckar
You and your reasonable analysis...
Incidentally the EU is suing Germany at the moment. I'm not sure why.
