Genuine post. I thought Brexit was wrong but it’s done, like it or not. Moved on. Otherwise I’m happy to agree Edit: But don’t let anyone see us agreeing, they might put you on a list of the “not-to-be-trusted”
Oh, I'm pretty sure that we agree, and happily, on far more than others - and perhaps either of us - actually realise! And I don't THINK my nether regions are tingling ..............
Still on sale, you are not too late! https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0091906814
It is that simple. My chart was per 100,000 population fatality Your chart is % fatality of those with observed cases of Covid Two completely different sets of analysis - the only commonality is that they are deaths. One for the whole population, the other for those with symptoms of Covid
Oh dear, They’re not your charts or mine,all I did was demonstrate that there are many charts and graphs which differ. It’s down to you how you interpret or understand them.Like the stats that are being pumped out daily,it’s very difficult to understand what it all means. Different countries record infections and deaths using different protocols so we have no way of knowing what the true figures really are.
If this article in The Guardian is correct Scotland’s first minister is prepared to forsake the lives of the UK citizens to curry favour with the eu.
The battle between EU and AstraZeneca is becoming interesting. They have published a redacted version of the contract this morning...
Which appears to specify: 1 that the Initial Doses shall be manufactured within the EU 2 and that AZ shall use best reasonable efforts to manufacture within the EU and UK (for the contract as a whole) but can top up from elsewhere if necessary. so, for me, point 1 is key. The Initial Doses shall be manufactured within the EU. Not the UK.
This is an interesting response Pascal Soriot (Big Boss of Astra Zeneca) gave when asked about dosages to the EU https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2...azeneca_coronavirus_covid_vaccines-284349628/ You say that EU is going to receive a reasonable quantity of doses by February. Could you please quantify this? "First of all, as soon as we get an approval by EMA, in the next few days, we will be shipping at least three million doses immediately to Europe, then we'll have another shipment about a week later and then the third or fourth week of February. And the target is to deliver 17 million doses by February. So, I am just estimating roughly, that would mean like about 3 million doses for Germany, probably 2,5 million for Italy and something like 2 million for Spain. I don't know exactly what the precise allocation is, but it's based on the population of each country. If you're in Germany, you can vaccinate three million people in one month. It's actually not so bad especially for the people who are the most exposed and most at risk. That's not a small proportion. And if you apply the three month regimen, then in March, you can do the same again or more potentially because we are working hard to increase our goals. It's not as good as we would like to, but it's really it's not so bad”.
and this is his response regarding supplies to EU after they had signed 3 months afer GB but wanted delivery at the same time "You said that the UK signed the AZ vaccine contract three months before EU, so you had more time to tweak and fix the potential disruptions of the supply. Why then did you commit to similar contracts with the EU, if you knew that in a very short time there could be problems like the one the EU supply chain is experiencing right now? "First of all, we have different plants and they have different yields and different productivity. One of the plans with the highest yield is in the UK because it started earlier. It also had its own issues, but we solved all, it has a good productivity, but it's the UK plant because it started earlier. Anyway, we didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a commitment we have to Europe: it’s a best effort, we said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because Europe at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the contract was signed three months later. So we said, “ok, we're going to do our best, we’re going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because we are three months behind UK”. We knew it was a super stretch goal and we know it's a big issue, this pandemic. But our contract is not a contractual commitment. It's a best effort. Basically we said we're going to try our best, but we can't guarantee we're going to succeed. In fact, getting there, we are a little bit delayed”.
Best reasonable efforts is the key term in this. This will be the one that AZ may well struggle to defend against.
I think best reasonable efforts clause helps them. It says that they should use best reasonable efforts which it defines as whatever a similar manufacturer would do in all the circumstances. But it is still best reasonable efforts to meet the requirement to produce the Initial Doses in the EU. It doesn’t look like it compels them to hit estimated volume targets, or to divert supplies from elsewhere if they can’t. And we already know that they have already had similar issues with getting the UK plant up to speed (three months ago) and that other manufacturers have also had initial problems. So I can’t see that the EU has a leg to stand on.
The meaning of Best Reasonable Efforts is interesting. In UK contract law there are two similar terms, namely reasonable endeavours and best endeavours. The difference between the two is very important. Reasonable Endeavours means that a party to a contract is required to do whatever a reasonable person would in the circumstances, but no more. Best Endeavours means that a party has to do whatever is possible, even if it might be considered unreasonable to expect it to do so. The EU-AZ contract uses the term Best Reasonable Efforts. It sounds like a hybrid, but the key is the word “Reasonable”. If you google it you get the following: “Reasonable best efforts” is a level down from the top end of the scale and is generally perceived as requiring substantial efforts be exerted in the process, but that a party would not ultimately be required to take any actions that would be commercially unreason- able under the circumstances. which is why the contract has a bit more text to try and define it, referring to what similar pharma companies would do in the circumstances and context. In other words I wouldn’t want to rely on the clause to sue AZ as the judge would be likely to say that it is unreasonable to expect AZ not to have teething issues with the new facility in Belgium, and unreasonable to expect them to divert from the UK to meet Initial Doses volume when the contract requires them to make them in Belgium.
The EU has a name for a group of countries,known as PIGS! Portugal,Italy,Greece and Spain,as explained to me by a bloke working in a petrol station in Spain when I was touring back in 2019. He explained that this was a derogatory term,originating in Brussels.
I thinks it's difficult to call, you could also view it that they are contracted to deliver n number of doses and if they cannot due to production issues in one plant then to fulfil the requirement it would be unreasonable not to supply them from their other production sites. To me this is a goods contract and not a manufacturing site contract.
