4 ms·
AZ set up a separate supply chain in each major jurisdiction. As I understand it, the EU interfered in its member countries' contracts, delayed them 3 months, d
by wbillingsley 6y ago
AZ set up a separate supply chain in each major jurisdiction. As I understand it, the EU interfered in its member countries' contracts, delayed them 3 months, delaying the EU supply chain from starting.
Ridiculously, from what I can see, in the contract the EU specifically stated they could only supply a few early doses from the UK in 2020 (because after Jan 1 the UK is outside the EU and they are not permitted to use non-EU production) and have then been trying to make spurious claims they're supposed to divert UK doses nearly a month afterwards.
Sorry to say it looks like EU Commission incompetence layered on some more EU Commission incompetence.
- estaseuropano 6y agoThe EU didn't interfere in any contracts. Some countries were moving ahead but the small ones were scared to be left out in the cold so pushed for it to be done by the EU instead of the big countries. Then once it was in the EU decision process some individual countries slower the agreement process with worries about price, ... Either way Brussels would get the blame - as too expensive, buying the wrong ones, not managing to agree quick enough, etc. But it's not as if someone in the commission just said and twiddled thumbs, they were negotiating, then convincing countries to agree, negotiating again, ... It's easy to point at 'the EU' but the Brussels institutions were asked to do it, rather than took this from someone. The countries were probably happy to have someone to blame later. What I would love to know is which country held things up in council - as the article says, some were doubting mRNA vaccines and others tried to go cheaper and that was the reason for the delay.