7 ms·

Ah, that's an interesting aspect I didn't know about. But if that's true it seems very hypocritical of the UK to complain so much about the EU's plan to introd

Ah, that's an interesting aspect I didn't know about. But if that's true it seems very hypocritical of the UK to complain so much about the EU's plan to introduce vaccine export controls, since they are doing the exact same thing already...

mytailorisrich 6y ago
Of course. As I said in my other comment, there is a lot of politics involved, not least because of Brexit and, frankly because the EU did not do very well (they may be looking for a diversion...) here while the UK did.
- thow-01187 6y ago
  To be fair, despite the heavy criticisms, it's not clear whether the EU objectively made any major mistake. The countries ahead of them in the vaccination effort did so by writing a blank check to the pharma companies - definitely not an ideal outcome either. EU diversified their vaccine contracts, negotiated fair prices, generously funded the manufacturing rollout, avoided vaccine nationalism between member states, equitably distributed the vaccines amongst their members and the key point - holds the manufacturers liable for possible damages. All of those points are entirely reasonable. One could argue that EU should have paid more, but there are two counterarguments: Firstly, it doesn't really move a needle, as both US and UK have home-front-first clauses, leaving only Israel and Arab oil producers skipping the queue. Secondly, said countries could just amend their contracts, bid up the price, and everyone is back at square one. Date of contract signing doesn't really matter either - a credible commitment to massive orders has been there from the very beginning. European Medical Agency gets a lot of undeserved flak for being slow and bureaucratic. Pfizer was approved mere 10 days later than in the US, Moderna got approved earlier than in the UK, and now AstraZeneca earlier than in the US. Allegedly, even those slippages were caused by the companies simply prioritizing their US/UK approvals. Partially, EU got unlucky - Sanofi vaccine flopped, AZ plant has technical problems, Curevac got delayed. In a world where Pfizer and AZ wouldn't underdeliver by an order of magnitude, EU plan would be praised and touted as a gold standard. Partially, EU was always fighting an uphill battle - the corporations that cleared the approvals simply care more about their image in the US/UK, don't like to face competent regulators, and really dislike being liable. Afaik, they face no liability in US and Israel. That being said, absent the EU policy, I'm quite confident that small countries like Latvia, Slovenia or Finland would end up with the short end of the stick.
- libertine 6y ago
  How would EU be painted if they demanded all vacines produced in Europe to stay in Europe before all their orders are fulfilled? That would be "doing very well"? Because it seems that's what UK is doing with AZ, their production stays in the UK. And that's doing well? If so, then EU should most definitely lock out exports of vaccines.
  - xioxox 6y ago
    The vaccine basically would not exist without the UK government helping putting together the organisation to make this, before AZ even got involved, plus the academic research funding. This vaccine is sold at cost and is allowed to be manufactured elsewhere such as in India. It seems perfectly reasonable that the UK can fund a facility to guarantee supply after all the investment and effort.
    - petre 6y ago
      The EU or rather the European Investment Bank also funded BioNTech. What they did not was fund a facility. Sanofi announced a couple of days ago that they're at the disposal of BioNTech for vaccine production.
    - zwaps 6y ago
      Again, why shouldn't the EU have done the same with the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine, developed and funded in the EU? I'll give my answer: Because it would have been a catastrophe for many countries that depend on these vaccines - especially those that are now doing quite well. Israel, Canada and so on. I personally find what the UK did ethically wrong. As it stands, there'll be no recourse for the EU that isn't as bad or arguably even worse. British people patting their own back about the ingenuity of mandating exclusive contracts for UK facilities - which factually is the same as export controls - is in my eyes quite detestable. The EU did everything wrong they could do wrong. But at the very least, they don't mandate an "EU first" clause.
notimetorelax 6y ago
Wouldn’t be the first time a politician behaved hypocritically, would it?
- freeone3000 6y ago
  It's not hypocritical at all. Keeping vaccine in the borders of the UK gives more vaccine to the UK, and importing vaccine from Europe gives more to the UK.
alastor2020 6y ago
It's different though surely? UK had an exclusivity agreement with a private company (AZ). EU had their own agreement. There is now a contractual dispute between EU and AZ. In retaliation, EU wants to use export controls to prevent another EU company (Pfizer) honouring its legal civil contract with the UK. This is trade war sort of stuff. EU should go to court with AZ to settle the dispute. The UK isn't a party here.
- Scarblac 6y ago
  No, the EU wants to stop exporting to the UK from Belgium, as they have already done,as long as they are behind on the agreed EU schedule.
- makomk 6y ago
  An exclusivity agreement for, as I understand it, a production line that the UK basically paid to set up in exchange for that exclusivity. Which seems like a pretty normal commercial arrangement.
cs02rm0 6y ago
There's a quite a difference between a contract signed by a company who could walk away without the money and imposed law that restricts trade!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
usrusr 6y ago
It seems like the gloves have come off wrt the idea of fair(ish) vaccine access across the board recently. I'm usually not much of an aficionado of free market radicalism, but I suspect that the vaccine ramp-up would go better, eventually better for everyone, if it had started with a honest commitment to the highest bidder mindset that we can't goodwill out of existence anyways. Only suspect, because who knows what failure modes the other path would hold, but I think that for example early arrangements for mandatory sublicensing (in case of research success) would have been much more likely to have found their way into research subsidy contracts if nation state representatives had been in a gloves-off situation from the beginning.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Of course. As I said in my other comment, there is a lot of politics involved, not least because of Brexit and, frankly because the EU did not do very well (they may be looking for a diversion...) here while the UK did.

thow-01187 6y ago
To be fair, despite the heavy criticisms, it's not clear whether the EU objectively made any major mistake. The countries ahead of them in the vaccination effort did so by writing a blank check to the pharma companies - definitely not an ideal outcome either. EU diversified their vaccine contracts, negotiated fair prices, generously funded the manufacturing rollout, avoided vaccine nationalism between member states, equitably distributed the vaccines amongst their members and the key point - holds the manufacturers liable for possible damages. All of those points are entirely reasonable. One could argue that EU should have paid more, but there are two counterarguments: Firstly, it doesn't really move a needle, as both US and UK have home-front-first clauses, leaving only Israel and Arab oil producers skipping the queue. Secondly, said countries could just amend their contracts, bid up the price, and everyone is back at square one. Date of contract signing doesn't really matter either - a credible commitment to massive orders has been there from the very beginning. European Medical Agency gets a lot of undeserved flak for being slow and bureaucratic. Pfizer was approved mere 10 days later than in the US, Moderna got approved earlier than in the UK, and now AstraZeneca earlier than in the US. Allegedly, even those slippages were caused by the companies simply prioritizing their US/UK approvals. Partially, EU got unlucky - Sanofi vaccine flopped, AZ plant has technical problems, Curevac got delayed. In a world where Pfizer and AZ wouldn't underdeliver by an order of magnitude, EU plan would be praised and touted as a gold standard. Partially, EU was always fighting an uphill battle - the corporations that cleared the approvals simply care more about their image in the US/UK, don't like to face competent regulators, and really dislike being liable. Afaik, they face no liability in US and Israel. That being said, absent the EU policy, I'm quite confident that small countries like Latvia, Slovenia or Finland would end up with the short end of the stick.
libertine 6y ago
How would EU be painted if they demanded all vacines produced in Europe to stay in Europe before all their orders are fulfilled? That would be "doing very well"? Because it seems that's what UK is doing with AZ, their production stays in the UK. And that's doing well? If so, then EU should most definitely lock out exports of vaccines.
- xioxox 6y ago
  The vaccine basically would not exist without the UK government helping putting together the organisation to make this, before AZ even got involved, plus the academic research funding. This vaccine is sold at cost and is allowed to be manufactured elsewhere such as in India. It seems perfectly reasonable that the UK can fund a facility to guarantee supply after all the investment and effort.
  - petre 6y ago
    The EU or rather the European Investment Bank also funded BioNTech. What they did not was fund a facility. Sanofi announced a couple of days ago that they're at the disposal of BioNTech for vaccine production.
  - zwaps 6y ago
    Again, why shouldn't the EU have done the same with the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine, developed and funded in the EU? I'll give my answer: Because it would have been a catastrophe for many countries that depend on these vaccines - especially those that are now doing quite well. Israel, Canada and so on. I personally find what the UK did ethically wrong. As it stands, there'll be no recourse for the EU that isn't as bad or arguably even worse. British people patting their own back about the ingenuity of mandating exclusive contracts for UK facilities - which factually is the same as export controls - is in my eyes quite detestable. The EU did everything wrong they could do wrong. But at the very least, they don't mandate an "EU first" clause.

notimetorelax 6y ago

Wouldn’t be the first time a politician behaved hypocritically, would it?

freeone3000 6y ago
It's not hypocritical at all. Keeping vaccine in the borders of the UK gives more vaccine to the UK, and importing vaccine from Europe gives more to the UK.

alastor2020 6y ago

It's different though surely? UK had an exclusivity agreement with a private company (AZ). EU had their own agreement. There is now a contractual dispute between EU and AZ. In retaliation, EU wants to use export controls to prevent another EU company (Pfizer) honouring its legal civil contract with the UK. This is trade war sort of stuff. EU should go to court with AZ to settle the dispute. The UK isn't a party here.

Scarblac 6y ago
No, the EU wants to stop exporting to the UK from Belgium, as they have already done,as long as they are behind on the agreed EU schedule.
makomk 6y ago
An exclusivity agreement for, as I understand it, a production line that the UK basically paid to set up in exchange for that exclusivity. Which seems like a pretty normal commercial arrangement.

cs02rm0 6y ago

There's a quite a difference between a contract signed by a company who could walk away without the money and imposed law that restricts trade!

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

usrusr 6y ago

It seems like the gloves have come off wrt the idea of fair(ish) vaccine access across the board recently. I'm usually not much of an aficionado of free market radicalism, but I suspect that the vaccine ramp-up would go better, eventually better for everyone, if it had started with a honest commitment to the highest bidder mindset that we can't goodwill out of existence anyways. Only suspect, because who knows what failure modes the other path would hold, but I think that for example early arrangements for mandatory sublicensing (in case of research success) would have been much more likely to have found their way into research subsidy contracts if nation state representatives had been in a gloves-off situation from the beginning.