Thai government mulls over regulations for locally-made AstraZeneca exports

[TobyAndrews]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

... and British, and German, and Belgian, and European, and .......

And it is pure British to do deals with these known scammers, whose only interest is to ignore deals when it does not suit them.

When is the West going to realise what these people do, and stop dealing with them?

[Stonker]

22 minutes ago, HuaHinHappy said:

The construction and certification of an mRNA vaccine facility can take 1-2 years.

Agreed 100% - BioNTech are reportedly planning on the factory being operational in 2023.

 

24 minutes ago, HuaHinHappy said:

It also requires an expertise and infrastructure that is not readily available in Thailand.  Singapore and South Korea offer a legal environment that recognizes intellectual property rights facilitating the transfer of advanced technology.  I doubt Thailand can be a player in high tech life science.

I'm far from sure that's equally true, though.

 

While they're not directly comparable there are some major similarities, and Thailand's electronics sector employs 800,000 people and is one of the world's largest manufacturers and exporters of electrical and advanced electronic products, with exports worth $60 billion, and they're far from just 'fridges and washing machines as Thailand is the leading manufacturer and exporter of computers, ic's and hard drives in Asean and not far behind China.

 

Not directly comparable to producing vaccines, sure, but there are plenty of similarities in terms of infrastructure, intellectual property rights and advanced technology transfer, and two or three years should be enough time to train up technicians, particularly as mRNA vaccines are easier to produce than traditional ones.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, TobyAndrews said:

The British allowed Thailand to manufacture this British and Swedish vaccine in Thailand on the understanding they would let other nearby nations have the vaccine, but the Thais exploit the deal.

Actually not "the British", who had nothing to do with allowing anything, but AZ.

 

Nor is it a "British and Swedish vaccine" , although AZ was originally formed from a British and a Swedish company, since they describe themselves as a "global biopharmaceutical business"  and they should know.

Professor Adrain Hill and a number of others in the Oxford Vaccine Group are actually Irish, and none are Swedish!

[AussieBob]

9 hours ago, Malc-Thai said:

I thought it was 200 million to be produced by Dec 31st and yes 60 million to Thailand.. that equates to 33 million a month ! I think they need to really look at getting production up to what was stated in the contract before changing the contract to suit the minimal amounts they are capable of producing now

I think it was up to 200 - but the Reuters report (I think) that I read said it was 180.  Either way they will make enough for the locals and I agree they should look into exporting less - now that they have a large outbreak. At the time they signed the contracts they had C19 under control - and of course planning ahead for 'just in case' scenarios is not a storng suit of the Thais - plus they make money from what is exported too.

[AussieBob]

8 hours ago, Velocette said:

Why do we not know how much they have provided to date? Also how much they expect to provide in the coming months? 

Why is there no transparency regarding production? Why the secrecy?

Normally politicians boast about things made in Thailand, rightly so, but about AstraZenica they are very tight lipped.

Because of who owns the business/factory making the AZ vaccine.

[AussieBob]

6 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

Taking the right step in breaking an agreement?  It is not as simple as that.

Astra Zeneca is not the only party to the vaccine contract. Keep in mind that the "recipe" was made available by way of a not-for-profit licensing agreement with Oxford University's Jenner Institute. The UK government as well as other groups provided the initial funding and it came with some conditions too. Astra Zeneca's involvement is in large part related to manufacturing expertise and support.  The  point is that the third party manufacturers do not own rights, but are license holders. There are  avenues of redress available to the owners of the rights and these can include the refusal to provide technology updates. The original recipe is under review with   an objective to see if formula can be modified to eliminate or reduce the risk of blood clots, and to  adapt for the new variants. Violating an agreement  could result in the responsible party being blocked from the intellectual property and  technology of the  formula  improvement.

Keep in mind that South Korea's SK Bioscience is producing the vaccine and is the preferred supplier for many countries. It  was granted certification from the EU, something that Thailand's facility does not have. More importantly, the company is  expediting a shift to mRNA vaccines which are considered to be more effective than the old school format of the Oxford vaccine. Thailand has invested in old school technology, that will produce a vaccine that will not offer as  effective protection as an mRNA vaccine. There is a  very good reason why the UK is pivoting its strategy to rely on the Pfizer product and why the EU and Canada encouraged those first vaccinated with Astra Zeneca to use Pfizer or Moderna  for the second dose.

There will soon be a deluge of Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines as the advanced countries change to a reliance on the mRNA vaccines. The vaccines will be distributed through COVAX, of which Thailand is neither a member, nor a supporter.

I hear you - and that is correct as far as I know too.  Thailand has contracted with AZ the global company who has the rights to AZ - and Thailand is unlikely to participate as a mRNA production site for several years at least  (if ever). Korea is the preferred SEAsia manufacturing site for both types of vaccines, given India's problems, and Thailand can see this too - another reason they may change their volume of exports. PR releases are a common way that the Junta (and many Govts) 'test the waters' about any idea they have, and to gauge the likely reactions. It would not be about breaking the contracts completely, it will be about keeping more in Thailand for a while longer because things have changed dramatically since the contracts were finalised. There will be lots of issues and complications - but I can see why they want to test the waters and I agree with them doing that.  Australia has a surplus of AZ coming by the look of it - things like that would be taken into account.

 

[Graham]

10 hours ago, AdvocatusDiaboli said:

Look who owns the company. Thaiger Talk rule number 3 prevents me discussing further.

Yeah, you nailed that right on the head.

[Stonker]

8 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

Taking the right step in breaking an agreement?  It is not as simple as that.

Sorry, @HHH, but I don't understand some of that, some of it seems incorrect, and some of it's definitely incorrect.

 

8 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

Keep in mind that the "recipe" was made available by way of a not-for-profit licensing agreement with Oxford University's Jenner Institute.

No, while some of the Jenner Institute were the same people as the Oxford Vaccine Group, who had initial property rights, the licensing agreement was with AZ, and like some others it's only not-for-profit for the duration of the pandemic (as they see it).

8 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

The UK government as well as other groups provided the initial funding and it came with some conditions too.

That may just be ambiguously mis-leading, but the only funding for Siam BioScience was 100 million baht from the Siam Cement Group, which has the same owner, and 600 million from the Thai Ministry of Public Health.

 

Any UK funding for Astra Zeneca or the OVG is moot for Siam BioScience.

8 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

More importantly, the company is  expediting a shift to mRNA vaccines which are considered to be more effective than the old school format of the Oxford vaccine.

Sorry, which "company"?   SK Bioscience?

 

If so, they're already producing both AZ and Novavax, which both use different technologies, so I doubt if they've got the capacity to produce a third vaccine with yet another technology.

9 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

There will soon be a deluge of Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines as the advanced countries change to a reliance on the mRNA vaccines.

I recall someone else saying this here, but I don't see how any deluge could be much more than a trickle globally at best given the demand world-wide and the limited supply.  Even though countries like the UK and USA have ordered five or six times the amount of vaccines they need, they don't actually have them yet as they haven't been produced.

 

9 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

The vaccines will be distributed through COVAX, of which Thailand is neither a member, nor a supporter.

COVAX has to either buy its vaccines or be given them, and it's a long, long way short of having enough for its global commitments, particularly as a lot of the vaccines its been given or bought are Sinopharm, SputnikV, and recently Sinovac, all of which are "questionable"  -  it's just signed a deal to buy 170 million doses of Sinopharm and 330 million doses of Sinovac.

 

Thailand could hardly be a COVAX "supporter" as that would mean paying for or giving COVAX vaccines it doesn't have itself, and membership is a double edged sword.  Thailand doesn't qualify for free COVAX vaccines like Laos or Vietnam so that would mean paying the full price for vaccines through COVAX and being limited to what it supplies, as well as taking and paying for what they're given if committed to.

Singapore, for example, still has to pay for any Sinovac vaccines it's sent and committed to, even though a week ago they said they're not even going to include any Sinovac vaccinations either in their tally or for those given them, and they have to pay a down payment in advance / up-front  and guarantee the rest  -  they can't even cancel the vaccines if they don't want them unless it's based on a price increase so high that they'd have to pay more than double the agreed price.

... and that's before you even consider that the majority of those who've had a COVAX vaccination (90% of those in Africa) can't travel to much of  the EU, US, UK, Australia or many other countries / areas as their Covishield (Indian produced) version of AZ isn't recognized by them, and many countries don't recognise Sinovac, Sinopharm or SputnikV either  -  and that COVAX has only shipped 118 million doses world-wide, or a thirtieth of the number of doses already given globally.

 

COVAX is far from the great success story it was meant to be, particularly for those who aren't eligible to get it free, and while Thailand has arguably made a complete shambles  / balls up / pig's ear / whatever of any vaccine procurement and roll out, as well as of manging and controlling Covid this year when it got marginally more complicated, not joining COVAX is probably the least of the countless and inexcusable mistakes made.

[TobyAndrews]

9 hours ago, Stonker said:

Actually not "the British", who had nothing to do with allowing anything, but AZ.

Nor is it a "British and Swedish vaccine" , although AZ was originally formed from a British and a Swedish company, since they describe themselves as a "global biopharmaceutical business"  and they should know.

Professor Adrain Hill and a number of others in the Oxford Vaccine Group are actually Irish, and none are Swedish!

Irish with a name Hill? Anyway he, with Professor Sarah Gibson and Professor Andrew Pollard, both as British as custard creams, invented the AZ vaccine.

One thing is certain, the Thais did NOT invent the AZ vaccine. I think they invented the bum squirt gun next to the toilet.

What the Swedish did I have still to discover. Did a swede wheel in the tea trolley occasionally?

[Bluesofa]

10 minutes ago, TobyAndrews said:

Irish with a name Hill? Anyway he, with Professor Sarah Gibson and Professor Andrew Pollard, both as British as custard creams, invented the AZ vaccine.

One thing is certain, the Thais did NOT invent the AZ vaccine. I think they invented the bum squirt gun next to the toilet.

What the Swedish did I have still to discover. Did a swede wheel in the tea trolley occasionally?

Professor Adrian Hill was born in Dublin and lived there until here wnet to university at Oxford. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_V._S._Hill 

[TobyAndrews]

10 minutes ago, Mike-Hunt said:

Professor Adrian Hill was born in Dublin and lived there until here wnet to university at Oxford. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_V._S._Hill 

Yes I read that. I thought the surname Hill was Jewish, however Hill is a common surname in Ireland . . .

[Bluesofa]

1 minute ago, TobyAndrews said:

13 minutes ago, Mike-Hunt said:

Professor Adrian Hill was born in Dublin and lived there until here wnet to university at Oxford. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_V._S._Hill 

Yes I read that. I thought the surname Hill was Jewish, however Hill is a common surname in Ireland .

"Irish with a name Hill?" - was your post sarcasm? If so, it went right over my head!
I didn't know Hill was a common Irish name, hence my googling it.

[TobyAndrews]

7 minutes ago, Mike-Hunt said:

"Irish with a name Hill?" - was your post sarcasm? If so, it went right over my head!
I didn't know Hill was a common Irish name, hence my googling it.

No, I did honestly thought Hill was a Jewish name . . .

[TobyAndrews]

2 minutes ago, TobyAndrews said:

No, I did honestly thought Hill was a Jewish name . . .

Here is something interesting: Professor Sarah Gibson who worked on the vaccine has an Irish surname.

Dos Irish are not as tik as yer tink.

 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, TobyAndrews said:

Irish with a name Hill? Anyway he, with Professor Sarah Gibson and Professor Andrew Pollard, both as British as custard creams, invented the AZ vaccine.

... and Professor Teresa Lambe, from Co Kildare and University College Dublin had nothing to do with it?

 

I wonder why they gave her an OBE for it then ....

 

... and I'm guessing you mean Sarah Gilbert .....

[Bluesofa]

3 hours ago, Stonker said:

... and Professor Teresa Lambe, from Co Kildare and University College Dublin had nothing to do with it?

I wonder why they gave her an OBE for it then ....

... and I'm guessing you mean Sarah Gilbert .....

Sara Gilbert - I thought she was in Roseanne?

[TobyAndrews]

3 hours ago, Stonker said:

... and Professor Teresa Lambe, from Co Kildare and University College Dublin had nothing to do with it?

I wonder why they gave her an OBE for it then ....

... and I'm guessing you mean Sarah Gilbert .....

Look where was it invented? Oxford right? And where is Oxford. England right?

This is an British invented vaccine. Just because some persons involved were not British does not mean the vaccine is not British.

You would argue water is not wet to prove your great wisdom.

[HuaHinHappy]

On 7/14/2021 at 11:29 PM, Stonker said:

Sorry, @HHH, but I don't understand some of that, some of it seems incorrect, and some of it's definitely incorrect.

No, while some of the Jenner Institute were the same people as the Oxford Vaccine Group, who had initial property rights, the licensing agreement was with AZ, and like some others it's only not-for-profit for the duration of the pandemic (as they see it).

That may just be ambiguously mis-leading, but the only funding for Siam BioScience was 100 million baht from the Siam Cement Group, which has the same owner, and 600 million from the Thai Ministry of Public Health.

Any UK funding for Astra Zeneca or the OVG is moot for Siam BioScience.

Sorry, which "company"?   SK Bioscience?

If so, they're already producing both AZ and Novavax, which both use different technologies, so I doubt if they've got the capacity to produce a third vaccine with yet another technology.

I recall someone else saying this here, but I don't see how any deluge could be much more than a trickle globally at best given the demand world-wide and the limited supply.  Even though countries like the UK and USA have ordered five or six times the amount of vaccines they need, they don't actually have them yet as they haven't been produced.

COVAX has to either buy its vaccines or be given them, and it's a long, long way short of having enough for its global commitments, particularly as a lot of the vaccines its been given or bought are Sinopharm, SputnikV, and recently Sinovac, all of which are "questionable"  -  it's just signed a deal to buy 170 million doses of Sinopharm and 330 million doses of Sinovac.

Thailand could hardly be a COVAX "supporter" as that would mean paying for or giving COVAX vaccines it doesn't have itself, and membership is a double edged sword.  Thailand doesn't qualify for free COVAX vaccines like Laos or Vietnam so that would mean paying the full price for vaccines through COVAX and being limited to what it supplies, as well as taking and paying for what they're given if committed to.

Singapore, for example, still has to pay for any Sinovac vaccines it's sent and committed to, even though a week ago they said they're not even going to include any Sinovac vaccinations either in their tally or for those given them, and they have to pay a down payment in advance / up-front  and guarantee the rest  -  they can't even cancel the vaccines if they don't want them unless it's based on a price increase so high that they'd have to pay more than double the agreed price.

... and that's before you even consider that the majority of those who've had a COVAX vaccination (90% of those in Africa) can't travel to much of  the EU, US, UK, Australia or many other countries / areas as their Covishield (Indian produced) version of AZ isn't recognized by them, and many countries don't recognise Sinovac, Sinopharm or SputnikV either  -  and that COVAX has only shipped 118 million doses world-wide, or a thirtieth of the number of doses already given globally.

COVAX is far from the great success story it was meant to be, particularly for those who aren't eligible to get it free, and while Thailand has arguably made a complete shambles  / balls up / pig's ear / whatever of any vaccine procurement and roll out, as well as of manging and controlling Covid this year when it got marginally more complicated, not joining COVAX is probably the least of the countless and inexcusable mistakes made.

That is quite the dismissive conclusion that my understanding of the underlying agreement intent is  incorrect. Now, I don't know if you have read any of the applicable documents or even seen a drug development or distribution agreement, but I have. 

There are multiple contracts and agreements in place. The key Oxford entity is Oxford University Innovation Limited (OUIL). The Intellectual Property rights used in the underlying contract are the same standardized rights common in all development contracts signed by Oxford University and its member organizations. They are set out in Part B of Statute XVI: Property, Contracts, and Trusts and in the Regulations for the Administration of the University's Intellectual Property Policy. )I suggest you read them.) The conditions apply even to  subcontracts not part of the original agreement.

The underlying agreement with Astra Zeneca was specifically for the “for the development, manufacturing and distribution of the vaccine”. This agreement extends to designated CMOs (Contract manufacturing Organizations) and other licensees.  The license offered follows the standard template of all OUIL IP agreements. The contract is also subject to the OUIL ethical conduct clauses. To a lesser extent, because the Government of UK provided critical funding to Oxford University for the development of the vaccine UK, an additional code of conduct and ethical obligations attach. This requirement is for all intents and purposes a mirror of the  OUIL ethical clauses except that there are additional requirements that apply to regulatory compliance. For example, the vaccine cannot be commercialized by sanctioned regimes.

In plain language, the recipe belongs to Oxford University and the use of the recipe by other parties is subject to the OUIL conduct clauses/conditions. This means that if a license holder wished to change the use and purpose of the  vaccine. permission and agreement of the original license holder OUIL would be required.

Thailand does not have a free hand in the manufacture, use or trade in the vaccine that will be manufactured in Thailand. It must still respect the terms and conditions of the  underlying IP transfer agreement. 

You have misunderstood the  purpose of Covax. it is not about "free vaccines".  COVAX is the entity by which participants will  share and support common R&D and the manufacture of Covid vaccines. It is also a purchasing agent, acting on behalf of all  will achieve this by acting as a platform that will support the research, development and manufacturing of a wide range of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, and negotiate their pricing.  The Covax purchase structure is  structured on the same basis as public entity buying groups, that purchase drugs on behalf of the health care systems in Australia, France,  Canada etc.  No one is getting "free" drugs. All countries are purchasing the Astra Zeneca  vaccine at the lowest cost available as per the  underlying  OUIL/Astra Zeneca undertaking to provide the vaccine at cost.  This is approximately $3USD per dose.  The "have" countries are subsidizing poorer countries purchases through contributions. 

Had Thailand been a participant and supporter of COVAX it could have accessed emergency supplies of  the vaccine to at least offer doses to health care workers and the at risk  population. This is what Canada did when it accessed the Covax inventory last May. Because it had contributed, it had the right to access the strategic inventory. Now that it no longer needs the vaccine, it is donating back the  surplus supplies.  This buffer structure was one of the benefits of Covax membership.  Thailand will also likely miss out on access to mRNA vaccines, because it failed to order in a timely manner. The failure is the refusal to manage the vaccine supply as most of did, with Thailand instead relying on a for profit private sector distribution model,  the same model that failed in India and resulted in vaccines not reaching the  high risk population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stonker]

 

3 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

That is quite the dismissive conclusion that my understanding of the underlying agreement intent is  incorrect.

 

No, all I'm saying is that what you said about the agreement between Astra Zeneca and Siam Bio Science is incorrect.  Nothing else.

 

I never mentioned any "underlying agreement intent" or referred to any as it's of no relevance or interest to me at all.

3 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

I suggest you read them.

I've got time on my hands, but why would I waste my time doing that?

 

Any agreement OUIL had was with Astra Zeneca, not Siam BioScience. 

In turn, Siam BioScience's agreement was with Astra Zeneca, not OUIL, the Jenner Institute, or the British Government.

If Astra Zeneca had had constraints put on them which they had to pass on to Siam BioScience, then they're part of the agreement between Siam BioScience and Astra Zeneca - the reason for the constraints is of purely academic interest, as it doesn't affect Siam BioScience at all.

What you say may all be very interesting to someone,  but it's of no relevance at all to me or the article as they weren't involved in the deal between Siam BioScience and Astra Zeneca. 

 

In plain language, their involvement was with Astra Zeneca - not Siam BioScience.

 

They simply played no part, and you were misinformed if you thought they did.

3 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

Thailand does not have a free hand in the manufacture, use or trade in the vaccine that will be manufactured in Thailand. It must still respect the terms and conditions of the  underlying IP transfer agreement. 

No, it has no obligation to respect the terms of the underlying IP transfer agreement at all unless they were included in the agreement between Astra Zeneca and Siam BioScience.  If they were (and they very probably were) it does, if they weren't it doesn't.

 

This is pretty basic stuff.

3 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

You have misunderstood the  purpose of Covax. it is not about "free vaccines".  

No, I've not misunderstood it at all as I never suggested it was "about 'free vaccines' "and I would have thought that was pretty clear when I said "Thailand doesn't qualify for free Covax" and "Singapore, for example, still has to pay" and I gave the details of how payments are made.

 

I'm sorry if that somehow wasn't clear.

3 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

All countries are purchasing the Astra Zeneca  vaccine at the lowest cost available as per the  underlying  OUIL/Astra Zeneca undertaking to provide the vaccine at cost.  This is approximately $3USD per dose. 

Sorry, but that's not correct either. 

 

South Africa paid $5.25 per dose according to their Deputy Director General of Health, Anban Pillay, through Covax, while according to Belgium's Budget Secretary, the EU paid $2.15 outside Covax.

 

That doesn't seem unreasonable given investment in research, but there's quite a difference between $5.25 for South Africa through Covax and $2.15 for the EU outside Covax.

 

3 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

Had Thailand been a participant and supporter of COVAX it could have accessed emergency supplies of  the vaccine to at least offer doses to health care workers and the at risk  population.

Agreed, indeed it could, but equally if it had tried to buy vaccines several months ago it could have done the same - but it didn't.

 

3 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

The failure is the refusal to manage the vaccine supply as most of did, with Thailand instead relying on a for profit private sector distribution model,  the same model that failed in India and resulted in vaccines not reaching the  high risk population.

I may have misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that Thailand's "failure" is down to their "relying on a for profit private sector distribution model", cherry-picking that it's "the same model that failed in India".

 

Well, it's also the same "for profit private sector distribution model" that worked very well in Israel, the UK, the US, and the EU, amongst plenty of others.

 

Blaming Thailand's appalling and inexcusable disaster of a vaccine procurement and rollout programme on their "relying on a for profit private sector distribution model" is letting them off far, far too lightly.

 

Some countries like Israel did exactly that and they have the best and highest vaccination rates in the world, but others like India did the same and they've done appallingly badly. 

 

Thailand's abject and inexcusable failure to have enough vaccines goes way, way beyond "relying on a for profit private sector distribution model".

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Stonker
typo

[HuaHinHappy]

22 hours ago, Stonker said:

No, all I'm saying is that what you said about the agreement between Astra Zeneca and Siam Bio Science is incorrect.  Nothing else.

I never mentioned any "underlying agreement intent" or referred to any as it's of no relevance or interest to me at all.

I've got time on my hands, but why would I waste my time doing that?

Any agreement OUIL had was with Astra Zeneca, not Siam BioScience. 

In turn, Siam BioScience's agreement was with Astra Zeneca, not OUIL, the Jenner Institute, or the British Government.

If Astra Zeneca had had constraints put on them which they had to pass on to Siam BioScience, then they're part of the agreement between Siam BioScience and Astra Zeneca - the reason for the constraints is of purely academic interest, as it doesn't affect Siam BioScience at all.

What you say may all be very interesting to someone,  but it's of no relevance at all to me or the article as they weren't involved in the deal between Siam BioScience and Astra Zeneca. 

In plain language, their involvement was with Astra Zeneca - not Siam BioScience.

They simply played no part, and you were misinformed if you thought they did.

No, it has no obligation to respect the terms of the underlying IP transfer agreement at all unless they were included in the agreement between Astra Zeneca and Siam BioScience.  If they were (and they very probably were) it does, if they weren't it doesn't.

This is pretty basic stuff.

No, I've not misunderstood it at all as I never suggested it was "about 'free vaccines' "and I would have thought that was pretty clear when I said "Thailand doesn't qualify for free Covax" and "Singapore, for example, still has to pay" and I gave the details of how payments are made.

I'm sorry if that somehow wasn't clear.

Sorry, but that's not correct either. 

South Africa paid $5.25 per dose according to their Deputy Director General of Health, Anban Pillay, through Covax, while according to Belgium's Budget Secretary, the EU paid $2.15 outside Covax.

That doesn't seem unreasonable given investment in research, but there's quite a difference between $5.25 for South Africa through Covax and $2.15 for the EU outside Covax.

Agreed, indeed it could, but equally if it had tried to buy vaccines several months ago it could have done the same - but it didn't.

I may have misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that Thailand's "failure" is down to their "relying on a for profit private sector distribution model", cherry-picking that it's "the same model that failed in India".

Well, it's also the same "for profit private sector distribution model" that worked very well in Israel, the UK, the US, and the EU, amongst plenty of others.

Blaming Thailand's appalling and inexcusable disaster of a vaccine procurement and rollout programme on their "relying on a for profit private sector distribution model" is letting them off far, far too lightly.

Some countries like Israel did exactly that and they have the best and highest vaccination rates in the world, but others like India did the same and they've done appallingly badly. 

Thailand's abject and inexcusable failure to have enough vaccines goes way, way beyond "relying on a for profit private sector distribution model".

Your position is that the underlying contracts signed between OUIL and Astra Zeneca have no relevance. Well, they most certainly do as their conditions impact any  agreements entered into by Astra Zeneca that rely on the OUIL vaccine IP. The OUIL-AZ agreement controls the commercialization of the vaccine.  You say you can't be bothered to read the agreements or the relevant clauses. Well, if you don't read them, how can you dismiss the conditions that apply?

You have assumed that the agreement between Siam Biosciences and Astra Zeneca is independent of any other agreement. It is not, if Astra Zeneca is using the Oxford  IP. This is not how contractual law is applied and this is not how life science manufacturing and distribution agreements are structured. You can believe what you want, but that does not change the reality of the life science sector and how contracts are structured. 

In respect to the OU AZ product, it seems that you have misunderstood the concept of vaccine cost, assuming that costs should be identical worldwide. The requirement from OUIL is that the vaccine be supplied at the defined cost (as set out in the underlying agreement). AZ has respected that agreement and this is reflected in the sub-manufacturing agreements it has entered into. The vaccine is not Astra Zeneca's to share, since it is OUIL that has the ownership interest in the formula. Astra Zeneca is sharing knowledge and technology for the manufacture and distribution of the vaccine. Nor is it  unusual for there to be variances between countries in the cost of a product.  Also, you have relied on unsubstantiated tweets as factual evidence of the final cost of product.  

You don't know if the South Africa cost includes delivery to the designated  MoH  logistics center do you?  Nor do you recognize that when a government puts up money for development and manufacturing facilities that it will recoup part of that investment by taking a discount on the selling price of the product to be produced. This is what occurred in the EU. In effect, the EU put up the money and in return was given a credit against the price. The cost has not changed, but the selling price has. The EU has 4 certified active ingredient manufacturing sites within the EU. South Africa has none. The cost to manufacture and supply the vaccine in the EU is lower than it is in South Africa. Shipping the vaccine is a  specialized cold shipment and it adds significantly to the purchase price of the final product. Lengthy international air and inland cargo shipments require specialized thermal wrappings, temperature loggings, specialty containers, and monitoring. Shipping to South Africa requires additional security.  The price South Africa will pay reflects that the higher cost to manufacture and to supply to South Africa.

Edited July 17, 2021 by HuaHinHappy

[TobyAndrews]

55 minutes ago, HuaHinHappy said:

Your position is that the underlying contracts signed between OUIL and Astra Zeneca have no relevance. Well, they most certainly do as their conditions impact any  agreements entered into by Astra Zeneca that rely on the OUIL vaccine IP. The OUIL-AZ agreement controls the commercialization of the vaccine.  You say you can't be bothered to read the agreements or the relevant clauses. Well, if you don't read them, how can you dismiss the conditions that apply?

You have assumed that the agreement between Siam Biosciences and Astra Zeneca is independent of any other agreement. It is not, if Astra Zeneca is using the Oxford  IP. This is not how contractual law is applied and this is not how life science manufacturing and distribution agreements are structured. You can believe what you want, but that does not change the reality of the life science sector and how contracts are structured. 

In respect to the OU AZ product, it seems that you have misunderstood the concept of vaccine cost, assuming that costs should be identical worldwide. The requirement from OUIL is that the vaccine be supplied at the defined cost (as set out in the underlying agreement). AZ has respected that agreement and this is reflected in the sub-manufacturing agreements it has entered into. The vaccine is not Astra Zeneca's to share, since it is OUIL that has the ownership interest in the formula. Astra Zeneca is sharing knowledge and technology for the manufacture and distribution of the vaccine. Nor is it  unusual for there to be variances between countries in the cost of a product.  Also, you have relied on unsubstantiated tweets as factual evidence of the final cost of product.  

You don't know if the South Africa cost includes delivery to the designated  MoH  logistics center do you?  Nor do you recognize that when a government puts up money for development and manufacturing facilities that it will recoup part of that investment by taking a discount on the selling price of the product to be produced. This is what occurred in the EU. In effect, the EU put up the money and in return was given a credit against the price. The cost has not changed, but the selling price has. The EU has 4 certified active ingredient manufacturing sites within the EU. South Africa has none. The cost to manufacture and supply the vaccine in the EU is lower than it is in South Africa. Shipping the vaccine is a  specialized cold shipment and it adds significantly to the purchase price of the final product. Lengthy international air and inland cargo shipments require specialized thermal wrappings, temperature loggings, specialty containers, and monitoring. Shipping to South Africa requires additional security.  The price South Africa will pay reflects that the higher cost to manufacture and to supply to South Africa.

Stonker Israel does not have the best and highest vaccination rates in the world.  Canada and UK are better.

 

 

 

[Stonker]

21 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

Your position is that the underlying contracts signed between OUIL and Astra Zeneca have no relevance.

No, that isn't my position.  Please don't tell me what my position is, then describe something which has no connection whatsoever with what I've said.

I thought my position was very clear, but I'll try to make it simpler for you.

If A has a contract with B, with contractual obligations, then B has a contract with C, A is a third party to C's contract and has no part in it.  C's only contractual obligations are to B NOT to A.

If B has included his obligations to A in his contract with C, then C is obliged to meet them, but ONLY because of his contract with B.

C has no contract or contractual obligations to A.  None. Zip. Nada.

A can chase B because he has a contract with B, but he can't do anything about C.  Only B can.

22 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

You say you can't be bothered to read the agreements or the relevant clauses. Well, if you don't read them, how can you dismiss the conditions that apply?

Because they don't apply to Siam BioScience unless they were part of the contract between AZ and Siam BioScience.  Why read a contract that Siam BioScience weren't part of?

22 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

You have assumed that the agreement between Siam Biosciences and Astra Zeneca is independent of any other agreement.

 

No I haven't.  See above.

22 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

This is not how contractual law is applied and this is not how life science manufacturing and distribution agreements are structured. You can believe what you want, but that does not change the reality of the life science sector and how contracts are structured.

Sorry, but the idea that "contractual law" is applied differently to the "life science sector" is just too bizarre to comment on politely.

 

23 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

Also, you have relied on unsubstantiated tweets as factual evidence of the final cost of product.  

I've no idea where you got that idea from, as I actually relied on reports in the BMJ, Reuters, countless reports in the mass media, and statements by the South Africa Health Department Deputy Director General and the director of the UNEPI.

They could, of course, all be wrong and you could be right .....

22 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

You don't know if the South Africa cost includes delivery to the designated  MoH  logistics center do you? 

Well, if I believe what the BMJ, Reuters, countless reports in the mass media, and the South Africa Health Department Deputy Director General say, then actually I do - and it didn't include shipping.

They could, of course, all be wrong, and you could be right .....

 

I could have used Uganda as an example, as according to Alfred Driwale who runs the Uganda National Expanded Programme on Immunization they were charged $7 per dose plus an additional $1.50 per dose for shipping, but that wasn't as widely reported or well documented.

..... and, of course, he and all the reports could be wrong and you could be right.....

22 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

Nor do you recognize that when a government puts up money for development and manufacturing facilities that it will recoup part of that investment by taking a discount on the selling price of the product to be produced. 

 

Actually I did recognize that which was why I said "that doesn't seem unreasonable given investment in research".  

Maybe you missed that.

22 hours ago, HuaHinHappy said:

This is ... (snip) ... South Africa.

Fascinating stuff, as always, @HHH, but as the $5.25 cost to South Africa didn't include shipping, like the $7 cost to Uganda, it's hardly relevant; nor, as far as the cost to South Africa goes, is it correct.

 

 

 

 

[Stonker]

22 hours ago, TobyAndrews said:

Stonker Israel does not have the best and highest vaccination rates in the world.  Canada and UK are better.

No idea why you've quoted @HHH then addressed me, but maybe you need to re-read what I wrote:

On 7/17/2021 at 1:42 AM, Stonker said:

Well, it's also the same "for profit private sector distribution model" that worked very well in Israel, the UK, the US, and the EU, amongst plenty of others.

... (snip) ...

Some countries like Israel did exactly that and they have the best and highest vaccination rates in the world, but others like India did the same and they've done appallingly badly. 

I've put the part in bold that you seem to have missed / mis-read.

[TobyAndrews]

13 hours ago, Stonker said:

No idea why you've quoted @HHH then addressed me, but maybe you need to re-read what I wrote:

I've put the part in bold that you seem to have missed / mis-read.

You wrote Some countries like Israel did exactly that and have the best and highest vaccination rates in the world.

This means Israel and some countries have the best and highest vaccination rates in the world.

Excluding the other countries Israel has not the best and highest vaccinations rates in the world. Canada and the UK have the best and highest vaccinations rates in the world.

As you are so concerned with details I thought I would assist you in that regard.

 

[TobyAndrews]

As a matter of interest the world statistics on vaccinations at present for at least one vaccination is:

Canada 70 percent. Best

UK 68 percent.

Israel 66 percent

USA 55 percent.

Cambodia 34 percent.

Thailand 15 percent

Nigeria 1 percent.

World average 26 percent.