Talk:European Commission–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bad title

I strongly doubt that

WP:COMMONNAME for a minor local dispute. Maybe the Independent did two days ago use the inflammatory newspaper headline "Vaccine war ... " but that's not the right basis on which to choose a Wikipedia article title. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Other UK newspapers and the BBC have referred to it as a vaccine war. It's a big thing in the UK at the moment, topping the news stories, but the article can be moved to another title if that name does not stick. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"European Union-AstraZeneca vaccine dispute" would work fine, no? Gsurfer04 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having just found my way to this article, and consequently this discussion, I agree with Gsurfer04 that "European Union-AstraZeneca vaccine dispute" would be a much better title. I won't move it though, let's wait for some more input from others. This is Paul (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say let it reflect a more professional title instead of "vaccine war". TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that title is dumb, so I changed it. It seems it might involve more than just EU and AstraZeneca, so I'm not sure what would be the best title, but just not using "war" is definitely an improvement. Taw (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to focus on the specific EU-AstraZeneca dispute (which it seems to be at the moment), then I think it should have that specific title as per
talk) 09:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The title has had an undiscussed move to
EU-UK-NI vaccine nationalism dispute by Magnovvig and I've qualms about that naming. It is probably a controversial move and this should probably have has a Template:Gs/talk notice added (which I'll now add). I don't have an immediate good alternative though.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that the article could use an even better title, but think that it is a vast improvement over what it was before. Magnovvig (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BOLD controversially moved especially as you have a received a current notification for a Template:Gs/alert on your talk page and also because it is currently the subject to a DYK nomination. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Djm-leighpark: I fail to see what Template:Gs/alert has to do with this subject. You seem to grasp at straws. Magnovvig (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@COVID vaccine dispute. Please get a consensus. I'm happy to see a consensus. Feel free to propose a move. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adapted from idea at todays BBC daily Coronavirus morning update [1] I could suggest UK-EU Covid-19 vaccine supply dispute as a title.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow editors. Can we move the article to

COVID-19 vaccine dispute before anything else? This move would be independent from the other moves being discussed ↑here↑, one of which might happen sometime in the future. I am proposing this because "COVID" is an incorrect spelling of the name of the disease with the name "COVID-19". ACLNM (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Does anyone opposes that I correct the typo ("COVID" → "COVID-19") in the article's name? This correction is independent of the discussion regarding the new title and does not interferes with it. If no one opposes, I will correct the typo in this article's name. ACLNM (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, fellow Cwmhiraeth. (This thread doesn't appear to be very active now.) As it has been 58h since I first posted regarding this matter and 2 out of a total of 2 people (Cwmhiraeth and I) don't oppose this correction (which is not intended to be disruptive), I will do the correction. I remind that this correction won't be incompatible with further changes of the article's name (previously being discussed in this thread); that it is just a correction of a misspelled word. ACLNM (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wider scope?

This is only one international dispute regarding the pandemic. The page title is vague despite this and it made me think that this page could potentially serve a wider scope should similar disputes happen in future. Gsurfer04 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to see how things develop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that during a vaccine dispute, the European Union was accused of "an absolutely incredible act of hostility" by Arlene Foster, Northern Ireland's first minister?

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Dumelow (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 07:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Whether relevant or not for DYK I have concerns this article has not been expanded to cover some of the fallout from this dispute (I'm unsure if this affects DYK). This includes: fallout impact on the ramifications of threat of revoking Article 16 (e.g.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55882140) ; the impact of the threat of export controls ; where the 9m doses have been magic'd from (I think I read AZ had procured extra capacity); Questions about more UK support for Valneva vaccine rather than EU/French support; pressure on Commission President Ursula von der Leyen .... I'm too tied RL currently to try to expand article which could be controversial but it probably needs nuturing and expansion in my view. It also really needs a Template:Gs/talk notice for covid if chosen for DYK. Otherwise probably has merits for DYK but DYK is not a zone I follow or know much about. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk)

In response to Djm-leighpark's concerns, no, that is of no relevance to the DYK nomination. What is of relevance is the merge tag. That needs to be resolved before this nomination goes anywhere. Please place a {{subst:DYK?again}} tag once that's resolved. Schwede66 01:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The merger suggestion has been resolved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: This nomination has been waiting a long time for review. Do you fancy doing it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that; I’ll be running a training session on DYK this weekend. Will use this as a case study. I’m sure that by the end of it, it’ll will have been reviewed. Schwede66 12:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was new enough when it got nominated. The article is plenty long enough and we checked the early edit summaries whether any prose got copied from other articles; there was no obvious evidence of this and the early version we checked from 31 Jan was quite substantial already. The article is neutral and within policy. Could "the head of Germany's Standing Committee on Vaccination" perhaps be rephrased to be different to the source (is he a "chief executive", "chairperson", or "director", or something like that?)?

The reviewing guide states: "Consider very carefully whether the hook puts undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual. Err on the side of caution, and when in doubt, suggest an ALT hook." As a group of Kiwi editors (sitting together in a large group in one room and no mask in sight – just saying), we are somewhat removed from the drama in Europe but wondered whether Arlene Foster would be happy to have the "absolutely incredible act of hostility" language associated to her. To that end, we wonder whether an alternative hook could be more suitable, e.g. the European Union reversing its decision the following day and admitting that they got it wrong? Please write an alternative hook for us to consider. Schwede66 23:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Things have moved on, and the original dispute between the EU and AstraZeneca has been subsumed into larger COVID-19 vaccine mismanagement issues and potential vaccine nationalism. The article has already seen several name changes and I can foresee this happening again. But let's get this DYK out of the way first. How about ALT1? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 is approved. The close paraphrasing outlined above (i.e. "the head of Germany's Standing Committee on Vaccination") is still to be addressed. Once that's done, it's all go. Schwede66 20:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Done, he's the chairman apparently. I have changed the piping in the hook link. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 is good to go. Schwede66 19:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useful summary

https://news.sky.com/story/astrazenecas-jab-has-had-a-bumpy-rollout-in-the-eu-but-how-did-it-play-out-12236052 Jopal22 (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have used that source to add a bit more information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Politico article has an interesting analysis of the AZ UK/EU contracts, which may be at the root cause of some of the events: [2]. 11:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

Recent edits

Chrisskidmore, please be very careful in how you edit this article. Specifically with regards to two recent edits you made:

  • "Removed a sentence that requires a citation from at least a reliable media source". The statement removed was "EU sources told journalists that they thought the plant was filling vaccine vials for export for the UK, against an Italian export ban" and this was followed (in the next sentence) by a citation to the Independent, one of the most reliable of British newspapers. The Indy's article stated "EU sources told La Stampa that the vaccines were destined for the UK", which, for me, directly supports this statement. I have restored it to the article.
  • "Removed a false reference saying the EU contract was signed 3 months after the UKs" . You removed the statement "This was three months later than the company had signed a binding agreement with the United Kingdom". This was cited to the Politico (A Brussels-based organisation reporting on European news) article. Again, the article supported this statement "However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said". Our article could have been a little clearer on the details of this agreement, which I have elaborated on when I have restored it

I am concerned that you are selectively deleting statements to suit an agenda. While all help is welcomed in improving this article it is important that we reflect a

neutral point of view - Dumelow (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

With regard to the first edit. I am interested in fact. Even if it was in The Independent, a paper I actually admire, quotes from unnamed "officials" in todays world and against am emotive backdrop, I don't see as reliable. The 2nd edit. But surely when something is untrue, it should not appear in a neutral argument just because a newspaper said it, whether that source is normally reputable or not. I did try adding a link to the actual contract that the UK signed on the 28th August that can be found in the UKs own contracts website, but this was deleted by the author because it was a "primary source". There seems to be some confusion with contracts. There is a difference between the advance purchase "contracts" and the supply and delivery contracts that are getting confused in the article that needs clarification. By deleting that line I hoped to remove some of the confusion. Chrisskidmore (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
WP:Primary we should generally avoid interpreting primary sources and instead rely on secondary reporting. TI note the Politico article states the UK contract was signed 28 August and have now included this in the article. Thanks for noticing this discrepancy, hopefully we can continue to develop the article further - Dumelow (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

recent revert

The current version insinuates that the EU's early vaccination campaign was slower because Macron criticised AstraZeneca for the lack of efficacy data for over 65s, but this has obviously nothing to do with the pace of the vaccine rollout. One desperately expects some balance and information on why EU regulators took more time if this background is presented to the reader. However, I shall take into account your reservations on my wording and suggest an alternative version in the main text. We can of course discuss this text here on the talk page. Rominator (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark Thank you for flagging the Telegraph source. I too noticed that this is behind a paywall, but as I did want to extremely careful in altering the text substance before my first edit, I did not do this and only changed text where it directly contradicted the text found in the source provided. Rominator (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British right-wing media allegations of unused stockpiles and response

I believe this is a inappropriate and inaccurate section name for the content of the section; assuming the "British media" refers to the "Daily Telegraph". If so at worst case these is a deliberate attempt to defame "The Daily Telegraph", and its writers: James Crisp; Justin Huggler, and Sarah Knapton. The content of the section of this article, and probably also the underlying source, do not support "British right-wing media allegations of unused stockpiles", but rather relating to the claims revolving round: "The European Commission has urged governments to stop sitting on vaccine stockpiles as infection rates rise" which is a subtly different allegation. e.g. [3]. I am willing to concede the EU/EC source may have been misrepresented/misquoted whatever, but I am reasonably certain the section title cannot be supported. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed this. I also remember interpretations like "The hasty decision of more than a dozen European nations to pause the use of the AstraZeneca jab has now sparked a civil war." [4] (again referring to Kyriakides' statement from 16 March, where she said that to the contrary, EU member states are fully in their right to take this precautionary measure while the EMA investigation was ongoing). To be fair, there is quite an intense debate about stockpiling doses. The German opposition, esp. the liberals (and also the chairperson of the union of general practitioners) is criticising the government, but I'm following this debate closely and no-one ever combined this with the AZ safety issues - because the German health minister said from the start that AZ doses should not be kept in store for follow-up appointments as the two shots are 3 months apart, but Biontech and Moderna shots are just 6 weeks apart, so these are still being stockpiled to secure that no appointment needs to be cancelled, and this seems to be a legal requirement. In fact, the AZ vaccine safety issues never played a role in this discussion (outside of the UK, and there are similar debates about these second doses in other member states). Rominator (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the UK decided to give the second AZ shot after a 12-week interval, but I was under the impression that the EU member states were sticking to the 4-week interval originally envisaged. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WHO (who I perceive tend to be guided by EMA in some matters but not necessarily this) recently altered its recommendation for an 8-12 interval between AZ doses.[1]

References

  1. ^ WHO (21 April 2021). Interim recommendations for use of the ChAdOx1-S (recombinant) vaccine against COVID-19 (AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine AZD1222, SII Covishield, SK Bioscience) — Interim guidance (PDF) (Report). World Health Organisation (WHO). Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 April 2021. Retrieved 23 April 2021.

In Germany this is 12 weeks: "The new data also shows that the vaccine is even more effective when the first and second jabs are administered 12 weeks apart," the [German] minister said, adding that the law would be updated to incorporate the new recommendations. [5] I think this is more or less the same in most or all other member states, but would need to look this up further. Rominator (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New paragraph on the EU export controls

@Cwmhiraeth I have now added a paragraph in response to the query you raised on my my talk page. Rominator (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a few questions about this parapgraph:
  • What is a "transparency and authorisation mechanism"? Did you mean the export ban? There's an earlier mention of "export transparency mechanism to gain oversight of the movement of vaccines", that needs to be clear what it is also
  • "the EU had prefinanced the development of all vaccines covered under this mechanism" I thought the AZ vaccine was initially developed with funding by Oxford University, with support from the British government? EU funding for AZ came later, I thought?
  • "The EU was also the only major OECD producer that exported vaccines on a large scale to numerous countries". We need to make sure here, and elsewhere, that it is clear that EU and most "free" countries (I think China and Russia are probably exceptions) do not "export" vaccines, the companies that make them do
Some sourcing issues seem to have crept into the article in that statements are made that are not supported by the sources. I've started to work through the background section to remove or reword these but I suspect there's more elsewhere and would welcome any help. I'll try to continue tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumelow

You wrote: not seeing any mention in the article linking AZ inexperience with supply problems or clinical trial issues?

Quoting from the Spiegel article: the pharmaceutical giant [AZ] has no experience in vaccine research. The article then goes on about the subcontractors that didn't deliver (as a result) and finally: AstraZeneca’s studies had been plagued by inaccuracies. (describing a number of flaws in the clinical studies. Th general thrust is that this a result of the company's lack of experience in vaccine research. Also the abstract: But after a series of mishaps at the company, trust in the substance that was supposed to help end the pandemic is eroding. (summarising issues with supply chains and clinical trials described in the article).

Our article stated "AstraZeneca had little experience in setting up the supply chains needed to kick-start the global sales it had envisaged, and this decision was responsible for both the upcoming global supply problems, which put the global fight against the pandemic into jeopardy, and for several flaws in clinical studies". I am not disputing that AZ had little experience in vaccine production. I have concerns that the source does not directly link this to the failure by the subcontractors to meet supply. As I say, I am working from the Google translation, if I've missed it could you post the relevant part here? Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You further wrote The background for this was the decision of the UK to leave the European Union." article doesn't state this

The article says: With Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government’s energies fully focused on leaving the EU... and A Company Gets Caught Between the Fronts (headline, i.e. after the UK and EU departed)

The statement above immediately followed the statement that Hancock wanted the UK to be vaccinated first, the article didn't link Brexit to the decision. I am not disputing that Brexit is an important aspect and should be discussed in the article, it just needs to be based on what the reliable sources are saying - Dumelow (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to your questions

  • the EU has not export ban, it has introduced an transparency and authorisation mechanism, which the article (not my edits) refers to as "export controls"
Sorry, I meant export control, not ban. As we are in agreement, I've defined the "transparency and authorisation mechanism" as an export control at first mention - Dumelow (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as sourced in the article, the EU has made a 336 million euro downpayment to Astrazeneca to cover development etc (sentence does not claim this was earlier than UK govt funding and why would it matter). My source says: In return for the right to buy a specified number of vaccine doses in a given timeframe, the Commission finances part of the upfront costs faced by vaccines producers in the form of Advance Purchase Agreements (APAs). (including with AZ).
OK, I think "prefinanced" led me to think that this was initial kickstart funding, I'll change it to "helped fund the upfront costs" to make this clear and match the source - Dumelow (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • my source says: the EU is the only major OECD producer that continues to export vaccines at large scale to dozens of countries. A company does not export, it may ship things. The company is not in control of export modalities, the EU (or US or UK) is. In the Covid19-pandemic export restrictions are in place in several countries, including the "free" world.
In a free market the producer choses who to sell their goods to. The source is incorrect here in calling the EU a producer; AZ, Pfizer etc. are the producers of the vaccine and until the export controls were free to export these wherever they pleased, leading to EU-based factories being a major supplier of vaccines internationally (as are, for example Indian factories). Incidentally, the EU is not an OECD member (there's a list at [6]) - Dumelow (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has become clear now that we are not dealing with a free market situation but with a pandemic/global health emergency situation where virtually all countries that produce some sort of medical produce (including vaccines) have either formal export bans or controls in place or simply don't export any vaccines because of some other internal agreement ("gentleman's agreement"). The EU is the only country or bloc that permits the exports of vaccines on a large scale and the UK/AZ's unwillingness to export any doses, along with the fact that the UK had received the bulk of vaccine exports from the EU, was the only reason why the EU introduced that mechanism (which now affects others too). This definitely got to be mentioned in this article (one way or another) because this is the entire background for the dispute. Notwithstanding this, my wording was simply a neutral and close imitation of the wording used in the source, but I'm happy that "producer" is replaced with something like "producing trade bloc/trade bloc hosting vaccine developers and manufacturers" (though again I think that the meaning is determined by the context and it is very clear what "producer" means in this instance and I currently struggle to come up with a better word.) A number of OECD countries are part of the EU, and these are primarily exporting (e.g. Germany), but we are here talking about the EU as a whole. You mention India and this is another good example for a large country choosing not to export vaccines (in that case AZ vaccines including to Britain): [7] This too should be mentioned in the article. Rominator (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer one of your alternatives to "producer". India is a major centre of vaccine production and prior to their export controls was the origin of 663.698 lakh (66.37 million) doses provided to other countries - Dumelow (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You may change this and/or I can have a look later (again probably this evening). Rominator (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also you have deleted reference to the Daily Telegraph as the source of a highly dubious claim, even though this claim has officially ruled out, but the sentence still tries to sell this as a "fact". This is not neutral POV.

I've restored the publication name, though I am concerned that we need to treat all reliable sources alike, and clarified in the next sentence that this was denied by the commission - Dumelow (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a closer look into other changes tomorrow. Rominator (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK Downing Street Coronavirus Press Conference Hancock 28 April 2021

Fairly significant press brief 28 April 2021 with

Johnathan Van Tam & Nikita Kanani. Ignore the self-congratulatory stuff ... its more a recognition of the front line vaccination effort. It goes some way to explain parts of the UK approach. Van-Tam (always worth listening to) goes to justify the UK approach to get the vaccination roll out complete in order to "And I can’t emphasize how important the vaccine program continues to be because we are at the moment down to 42 year olds, but we need to go much further down and continue that high uptake to put us in a really sustainably safe place." (I think he has said with the vaccination programme before "do it once and do it right"). He covers planning/reasoning for a booster jab that will likely be needed at some point. He covers that the UK "3rd wave" (the UK "2nd wave had two peaks so sometimes is considered as two waves ... and Van-Tam almost uses it inconsistently for a predicted 3rd wave (or some would say 4th wave). He covers that Lockdown not vaccination was responsible for curtailing the Winter 2020/21 wave with the UK/Kent variant; with vaccination contribution only coming in at the later stages). There's a transcript here but beware of spelling issues:[8]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

EEA vaccine doses stockpiles tracker

This is an excellent website that gives a full account of vaccine doses delivered and administered in all EEA states, broken down by brand and updated on a daily basis (top right tile): [9] For example, the Netherlands have received 1,414,100 doses of AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria) and administered 1,280,216 (as of 29 April). But the Daily Mail wrote an article which most readers understood said that the Netherlands have received 11 m doses and adminstered just 1.5 m due to constraints and : Most of Holland's 11million doses of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine will go UNUSED after government restricted its use on under-60s despite soaring cases ... While the Netherlands has ordered 11 million doses of the jab, which is only being given to people between the ages of 60 and 64, only 1.5 million doses have been handed out so far to the population of around 17 million. [10] (Obiously, the 11 m is the total order, the Dutch share from the overall 300 m doses, of which only 1.4 m have arrived so far. "Handed out" means handed out by AstraZeneca to Netherlands/the EU, but most people would understand that this means the Netherlands have handed out only 1.5 m out of 11m they ordered) The only country I can see that really seems to have an issue with the AstraZeneca vaccine is Greece. Perhaps they are more picky than others. Most European "stockpiles" are Moderna doses (kept for second shots). Rominator (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK AZ exports to Australia Feb-Mar 2021?

I just came across this report in the Guardian in April 2021, (when looking for something else), indicating AZD1222 shipments from UK to Austrailia. I am minded these may be true, or it may have been the wrong end of the stick with the UK's role in creating the vaccine being misreported by the Sydney Herald that it was the UK that manufactured these dose batches [11]. Noting this here anyway. Djm-mobile (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC) (Djm-leighpark)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Commission–AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine_dispute&oldid=1215033422"