4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoAgain, 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.