5 ms·

What I don't understand: Most comments sound like the EU wants to take doses away from the UK. But wasn't the source of the whole argument that doses produced

by jpdus 6y ago

What I don't understand: Most comments sound like the EU wants to take doses away from the UK. But wasn't the source of the whole argument that doses produced in the EU (with EU money and for which the EU assumed they were reserved for EU use) were exported to the UK before EMA approved the vaccine, so that now only 31 vs 80m promised doses are delivered in Q1 for the EU while AZ delivers everyone else in full? I can get behind the critic of the tone, but if this description is correct, AZs went at least against the spirit in the contract. Everyone else (US, UK with AZ contract) prohibits exports of domestically produced vaccines, while e.g. Pfizer/Biontech supplies everybody out of the EU. I don't think you can blame the EU now to follow everyone's example as their (naive) idea of generous grants but few rules obviously didn't work out to get the population vaccinated asap.

mchusma 6y ago
I don't know about the legality, but I can say that if you want to take forever to lift the ban on the vaccine, you lose moral justification for complaining about things being slow. If they approved in November, I'd feel differently.
zwaps 6y ago
The UK is a small country. Their "Britain first" clause, in absolute terms, has little impact. If the EU had done the same with the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine, then the only countries with any vaccination success would have been the US, the EU, and whoever made a deal with either China or Russia (assuming efficacy there). The EU has a moral obligation to supply the world, given that the BionTech vaccine was the first to be available and still is the one with the highest success rate. So, personally, I am glad that the EU did not follow the UK with an exclusivity contract. It would have been a literal disaster for many countries, including the UK. I am less happy about the EU's reaction. There is really nothing to be done right now, AZ played the UK and EU against each other. The EU should remember this - and also the UK's "Britain first" contracting very well indeed. However, this grandstanding and sable-rattling is unbecoming and will accomplish nothing. Several British people, even here, don't even acknowledge that the overwhelming success of the UK's vaccine efforts are in large part due to a vaccine funded, developed and produced in the EU, and the EU's unwillingness (or inability) to prioritize its own population. In turn, they also don't acknowledge the qualitative difference of the UK's priority contracting with their own vaccine. Lacking such perspective, how would one perceive the idiocy that the EU now perpetrates? What is happening now is a diplomatic disaster. The EU should have just published the numbers of how much vaccine was sent elsewhere, how much of the vaccine successes are due to doses produced in the EU, how the "trade balance" of vaccines looks between different countries (say with the UK), and how the EU's deficient vaccine program can be seen in that light. Then, the reader could eventually draw their own conclusion about the moral and ethical behavior of certain countries in a global pandemic. No matter what AZ did, cutting large parts of the world off from the main supply of the most efficient vaccine is still not justifiable. And threatening this is simply absurd. Yet, the EU commission did just that. That's the shameful part. The naive contracts are not, at least not in the bigger picture.
- klelatti 6y ago
  Please check your facts: > If the EU had done the same with the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine, then the only countries with any vaccination success would have been the US, the EU, and whoever made a deal with either China or Russia (assuming efficacy there). Nope. The AZ vaccine has been massively deployed in the UK - I know because several members of my family had the AZ vaccine weeks ago and long before it was approved in the EU. > So, personally, I am glad that the EU did not follow the UK with an exclusivity contract. It would have been a literal disaster for many countries, including the UK. Completely wrong - there is no exclusivity over the AZ vaccine. AZ/Oxford have been working with manufacturers around the world to build capacity and it's being sold at cost (unlike the other vaccines). Given the lower cost and easier storage it's will be hugely deployed in the developing world. The truth is that uniquely, the AZ vaccine's development and initial manufacturing was fully funded by the UK government and then being made at contractors to be sold at cost in 12 countries (including in the EU). Many months later, with manufacturing in the EU having ramp-up problems, the EU commission panic about their lateness, spot doses being manufactured in the UK for the UK population and say "we'll have those" using a dubious interpretation of their contract. Not surprising we've seen a U-turn today.

by jpdus 6y ago

mchusma 6y ago

I don't know about the legality, but I can say that if you want to take forever to lift the ban on the vaccine, you lose moral justification for complaining about things being slow. If they approved in November, I'd feel differently.

zwaps 6y ago

The UK is a small country. Their "Britain first" clause, in absolute terms, has little impact. If the EU had done the same with the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine, then the only countries with any vaccination success would have been the US, the EU, and whoever made a deal with either China or Russia (assuming efficacy there). The EU has a moral obligation to supply the world, given that the BionTech vaccine was the first to be available and still is the one with the highest success rate. So, personally, I am glad that the EU did not follow the UK with an exclusivity contract. It would have been a literal disaster for many countries, including the UK. I am less happy about the EU's reaction. There is really nothing to be done right now, AZ played the UK and EU against each other. The EU should remember this - and also the UK's "Britain first" contracting very well indeed. However, this grandstanding and sable-rattling is unbecoming and will accomplish nothing. Several British people, even here, don't even acknowledge that the overwhelming success of the UK's vaccine efforts are in large part due to a vaccine funded, developed and produced in the EU, and the EU's unwillingness (or inability) to prioritize its own population. In turn, they also don't acknowledge the qualitative difference of the UK's priority contracting with their own vaccine. Lacking such perspective, how would one perceive the idiocy that the EU now perpetrates? What is happening now is a diplomatic disaster. The EU should have just published the numbers of how much vaccine was sent elsewhere, how much of the vaccine successes are due to doses produced in the EU, how the "trade balance" of vaccines looks between different countries (say with the UK), and how the EU's deficient vaccine program can be seen in that light. Then, the reader could eventually draw their own conclusion about the moral and ethical behavior of certain countries in a global pandemic. No matter what AZ did, cutting large parts of the world off from the main supply of the most efficient vaccine is still not justifiable. And threatening this is simply absurd. Yet, the EU commission did just that. That's the shameful part. The naive contracts are not, at least not in the bigger picture.

klelatti 6y ago
Please check your facts: > If the EU had done the same with the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine, then the only countries with any vaccination success would have been the US, the EU, and whoever made a deal with either China or Russia (assuming efficacy there). Nope. The AZ vaccine has been massively deployed in the UK - I know because several members of my family had the AZ vaccine weeks ago and long before it was approved in the EU. > So, personally, I am glad that the EU did not follow the UK with an exclusivity contract. It would have been a literal disaster for many countries, including the UK. Completely wrong - there is no exclusivity over the AZ vaccine. AZ/Oxford have been working with manufacturers around the world to build capacity and it's being sold at cost (unlike the other vaccines). Given the lower cost and easier storage it's will be hugely deployed in the developing world. The truth is that uniquely, the AZ vaccine's development and initial manufacturing was fully funded by the UK government and then being made at contractors to be sold at cost in 12 countries (including in the EU). Many months later, with manufacturing in the EU having ramp-up problems, the EU commission panic about their lateness, spot doses being manufactured in the UK for the UK population and say "we'll have those" using a dubious interpretation of their contract. Not surprising we've seen a U-turn today.