3 ms·

The UK makes a convenient scapegoat. The EU leadership, and the leadership of several prominent EU member states, have not handled the vaccine issue well. In c

The UK makes a convenient scapegoat. The EU leadership, and the leadership of several prominent EU member states, have not handled the vaccine issue well. In contrast, at least on this issue, the UK leadership's response to the coronavirus has been relatively good so far, partly because it chose not to participate in the EU vaccination programme and instead made its own arrangements. That would look bad for the EU leaders at the best of times, but in a newly post-Brexit relationship, the optics are particularly harmful. The virus has shown, in the most direct and personal of ways, that some criticisms of the EU made by the more reasonable Leave supporters in the UK did have elements of truth to them. The almost Trumpian misrepresentations and doubling down from some of the EU and member state leaders in recent days might have been embarrassing and a cause for some friendly Schadenfreude in the UK media under other circumstances, but when people are literally dying as a result, there's no funny side, it's just awful.

dane-pgp 6y ago
> the UK leadership's response to the coronavirus has been relatively good so far Which actions specifically would you say the UK leadership carried out which the EU leadership failed to carry out? Obviously the failure at the Belgian plant wasn't a decision made by the EU, and the AstraZeneca vaccine was approved in the EU less than a month after it was approved in the UK, so it's not clear that there was excessive bureaucracy by the EU (or, conversely, insufficient scrutiny by the UK authorities). The only other major factors I can think of are the amounts spent per dose by the UK versus the EU (which is a difficult economic question) and the fact that the UK has the centralised infrastructure of the NHS, which is certainly an advantage but not something the current UK leadership can take the credit for.
- neximo64 6y ago
  1) At risk exposure commitments (vs preorders). The Eu didn’t want to take risk and only wanted to pay upfront for what can be delivered. The uk got a VC to allocate risk and pick vaccines (Kate Bingham) vs a Sandra Gallina who was focused on lower prices. If vaccines failed the Uk govt lost money vs the EU approach where nothing would be lost since its just a pre-order. This is the reason the Uk govt insisted on being supplied first. 2) Sourcing multiple vaccine candidates early on & focusing on speed (vs national equity such as France’s insistence on Sanofi matching Biontech). Sanofi's candidate failed/was too slow in the end and is almost a primary reason for the EU failure. 3) Brewing early, AZ had similar issues as they do in the EU and was late in the UK as well. The vaccines were expected in October but were pushed to end December because of similar problems as are happening in Belgium. It takes 3 months to fix a brew so its not easy to deal with. The UK govt got an Indian firm to help get some technical expertise to get that brew to scale faster (partnership approach) 4) Securing low dead volume syringes early on - allowing up to 7 doses vs 5 from a vial. The Eu only started to look in December whereas the NHS got them in June. 5) Centralised NHS database to find candidates to test the vaccine on for phase 3 trials within the UK/Regulatory nimbleness. Having the trials in the UK allowed them to be monitored far more closely. 6) Focus on enabling onshore manufacturing. The govt specifically replaced Merck with AZ to ensure this, so blockades were in control and other key ingredients were made onshore for other candidates (such as the Pfizer vaccine). 7) Partnership approach with AZ/Pfizer, etc in ecuring supplies using the RAF. Where something wasn't available onshore the RAF was sent to personally pick up anything in another country and no expense was spared. It looked a bit dodgy because this part was done using shorthand process where parliamentary scrutiny wasn't properly applied. Covid locked up transport so vaccine makers were asked what they needed and the Uk govt helped secure it vs leaving it to the manufacturers to secure it.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    Thank you for writing that out, it's quite similar to how I would have answered. In particular, I would have emphasized that timing wasn't just about regulatory approval but also about when firm commitments were made to manufacturers, and that the UK government has gone to considerable lengths to support the infrastructure and logistics of the operation. The EU was trying to negotiate the best deals and avoid committing to anything, and some of its member states seem to have been trying to push decisions in favour of their own businesses. The UK took more of a "just get it done" stance. One of these strategies has obviously been far more effective than the other. Another important point I'd add is that the UK leadership has always recognised the importance of public confidence in the vaccines and how important it is to take them when your turn comes. They've consistently argued that the vaccines were safe and people should trust them, published regular figures to show how the vaccination programme has been progressing, made sure high profile people were seen to be taking the vaccines when it was their turn, etc. Compare that to the kinds of negative rhetoric from parts of the EU, with several member states blocking distribution of the AZ vaccine as recently as last week in flagrant disregard of the science and the expert advice. As a final point, the UK has so far been an outlier in extending the time between first and second doses for the two-dose vaccines in order to prioritise getting first doses to as many people as possible. This strategy was widely questioned at first, because it meant deviating from what the trial and approvals processes had strictly verified, even if that deviation made sense based on our general scientific understanding at the time. So far, the evidence is definitely supporting it as a good decision, and reports about it now focus more on concern among scientific and healthcare communities that other countries that have been slower with vaccinations aren't learning from the UK's experience here.

dane-pgp 6y ago

> the UK leadership's response to the coronavirus has been relatively good so far Which actions specifically would you say the UK leadership carried out which the EU leadership failed to carry out? Obviously the failure at the Belgian plant wasn't a decision made by the EU, and the AstraZeneca vaccine was approved in the EU less than a month after it was approved in the UK, so it's not clear that there was excessive bureaucracy by the EU (or, conversely, insufficient scrutiny by the UK authorities). The only other major factors I can think of are the amounts spent per dose by the UK versus the EU (which is a difficult economic question) and the fact that the UK has the centralised infrastructure of the NHS, which is certainly an advantage but not something the current UK leadership can take the credit for.

neximo64 6y ago
1) At risk exposure commitments (vs preorders). The Eu didn’t want to take risk and only wanted to pay upfront for what can be delivered. The uk got a VC to allocate risk and pick vaccines (Kate Bingham) vs a Sandra Gallina who was focused on lower prices. If vaccines failed the Uk govt lost money vs the EU approach where nothing would be lost since its just a pre-order. This is the reason the Uk govt insisted on being supplied first. 2) Sourcing multiple vaccine candidates early on & focusing on speed (vs national equity such as France’s insistence on Sanofi matching Biontech). Sanofi's candidate failed/was too slow in the end and is almost a primary reason for the EU failure. 3) Brewing early, AZ had similar issues as they do in the EU and was late in the UK as well. The vaccines were expected in October but were pushed to end December because of similar problems as are happening in Belgium. It takes 3 months to fix a brew so its not easy to deal with. The UK govt got an Indian firm to help get some technical expertise to get that brew to scale faster (partnership approach) 4) Securing low dead volume syringes early on - allowing up to 7 doses vs 5 from a vial. The Eu only started to look in December whereas the NHS got them in June. 5) Centralised NHS database to find candidates to test the vaccine on for phase 3 trials within the UK/Regulatory nimbleness. Having the trials in the UK allowed them to be monitored far more closely. 6) Focus on enabling onshore manufacturing. The govt specifically replaced Merck with AZ to ensure this, so blockades were in control and other key ingredients were made onshore for other candidates (such as the Pfizer vaccine). 7) Partnership approach with AZ/Pfizer, etc in ecuring supplies using the RAF. Where something wasn't available onshore the RAF was sent to personally pick up anything in another country and no expense was spared. It looked a bit dodgy because this part was done using shorthand process where parliamentary scrutiny wasn't properly applied. Covid locked up transport so vaccine makers were asked what they needed and the Uk govt helped secure it vs leaving it to the manufacturers to secure it.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  Thank you for writing that out, it's quite similar to how I would have answered. In particular, I would have emphasized that timing wasn't just about regulatory approval but also about when firm commitments were made to manufacturers, and that the UK government has gone to considerable lengths to support the infrastructure and logistics of the operation. The EU was trying to negotiate the best deals and avoid committing to anything, and some of its member states seem to have been trying to push decisions in favour of their own businesses. The UK took more of a "just get it done" stance. One of these strategies has obviously been far more effective than the other. Another important point I'd add is that the UK leadership has always recognised the importance of public confidence in the vaccines and how important it is to take them when your turn comes. They've consistently argued that the vaccines were safe and people should trust them, published regular figures to show how the vaccination programme has been progressing, made sure high profile people were seen to be taking the vaccines when it was their turn, etc. Compare that to the kinds of negative rhetoric from parts of the EU, with several member states blocking distribution of the AZ vaccine as recently as last week in flagrant disregard of the science and the expert advice. As a final point, the UK has so far been an outlier in extending the time between first and second doses for the two-dose vaccines in order to prioritise getting first doses to as many people as possible. This strategy was widely questioned at first, because it meant deviating from what the trial and approvals processes had strictly verified, even if that deviation made sense based on our general scientific understanding at the time. So far, the evidence is definitely supporting it as a good decision, and reports about it now focus more on concern among scientific and healthcare communities that other countries that have been slower with vaccinations aren't learning from the UK's experience here.