Thread: Coronavirus
View Single Post
Old 11-02-2021, 15:28   #3624
jonbxx
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: #Plagueisland
Age: 54
Services: VM VIP Pack
Posts: 1,712
jonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appeal
jonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appeal
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
The purchasing decisions in the UK and the EU were both fundamentally sound. There are a range of vaccine types from a range of companies with varying experience. The difference between the two lies in their non-healthcare related policy aims. The EU’s decision to act on behalf of member states, whatever else it was meant to achieve, was an attempt at a deliberate post-Brexit display of the superiority of the EU’s concept of pooled sovereignty. All would benefit from the strength of the biggest members, and the power of the whole would secure the lowest prices and the most favourable terms.

Meanwhile in the UK, where for whatever reason we have not been very good at curbing the spread of the virus or stopping it from killing a lot of people, the overriding policy aim has been getting hold of lots of vaccines quickly. That led HMG to veto Oxford University’s intention to give its vaccine formula to an American manufacturer due to concerns over whether it could then be banned from export back to the UK by the Trump administration, and its strong urging that they choose a company that could manufacture in the UK. It also led HMG to prioritise rapid conclusion of deals over price, although its involvement in the Oxford-AstraZeneca tie-up has allowed it to negotiate at-cost terms for the duration of the pandemic.

It seems unlikely that the EU would have been able to directly intervene in the production process in the way we have done, although ensuring domestic production is less of an issue as they already have several sites in EU member states dedicated to that. The bigger issue for the EU is that trying to devise a system by which states could act together has taken time, acting in an unfamiliar policy area has taken time, and trying to prove the power of the EU by negotiating hard on price, delivery terms, IP rights etc has taken time. The EU has been let down by its inefficient bureaucracy and by focusing on political symbolism rather than on an unfolding public health crisis.

Hence why, if you take vaccine nationalism out of the equation, you can’t understand the disparity of performance. It was an attempt to deal in European nationalism that has put them in this mess.
Remember though that like the UK, the member states could have set up Emergency Use Authorisations under EU law but chose not to (or at least didn't early on, Hungary has one on the go for Sputnik V) This is from Art. 5(2) of Directive 2001/83;

Quote:
Member States may temporarily authorise the distribution of an
unauthorised medicinal product in response to the suspected or
confirmed spread of pathogenic agents, toxins, chemical agents or
nuclear radiation any of which could cause harm.
There's big questions from the public at least in Germany on why governments didn't do this
jonbxx is offline