The UK has (first-dose) vaccinated close to a quarter of the population now. Given the vast population difference between it and Israel it seems to be doing pretty well too.
If you wait until Q3, you can get a proven vaccine for $3 per person, so $90m instead, so going early is going to cost you ... $3.1bn? So that's still 10% of GDP ish. Not sure that's an easy sell.
I was very impressed. I am looking forward to seeing how it continues. If there is a way to improve supply I have no doubt they could go even faster.
As a side note; The side effects to the Oxford jab was less than ideal. Bad chills (on an already very cold day) and a cracking headache. Feel much better now but I wasn't expecting it to be so bad! I had had COVID before, although it was mild, and I've heard this can make the reaction a bit worse than normal. So maybe that was why.
There are vaccine centres in London (certainly the one I attended) having to close early because a lot of people in group 1-4 are refusing to take up their appointments. I believe that so they can make use of their supply they've had to transition to lower groups a lot sooner than planned.
0: by which of course I mean strong institutions like the NHS, apolitical and well-organised army, regional councils, and the civil service
So I'm not sure it's only a supply issue.
My pet theory is, that someone looked for a scapegoat why German vaccinations are so low. AZ was a welcome one, especially after the question of whether AZ had to use its UK factories for EU orders. After that stunt, I have the impression AZ is somewhat pissed.
The EMA allowed the use of AZ for patients over 65 (because they guess that it'll probably be effective), but the STIKO and other government institutions of the various EU countries restricted it.
I don't think it'll make a huge difference, since more than a third of german vaccine doses were used based on occupation, where AZ can be used. The obvious scapegoat for slow vaccinations is that AZ cut deliveries by a large amount, which might not be AZs fault, so the different scapegoat wasn't needed.
The most important thing to remember is that both the UK and EU pre-paid for AZ to manufacture their vaccine pre-approval. The date of regulatory approval and the manufacturing schedule are supposed to be completely decoupled.
It's true that the UK got their vaccine order in first and nobody is denying that. That's why the UK was getting shipments from AZ back in December. When the EU finally signed their contract they were told that their deliveries could start in February.
While I doubt the EMA is going to comment publicly on the timing of their decisions, I don't think it's a coincidence that their approval of AZ was done in late January. They already knew that the meaningful supplies were starting in February so they simply collected as much data as they could before making the "go/no-go" decision.
So while the "feckless EU bureaucrats screwed it up" storyline is forever popular (both in the UK and EU press) they seem pretty blameless on the issue of AZ approval. They just had to get it approved before the manufacturer was ready to start deliveries and they managed that.
What kicked this into a crisis is that AZ announced that their February deliveries to the EU would be less than half of the expected amount. The EU's position is that the UK and EU should be treated equivalently at this point: they both pre-paid for certain quantities to be delivered in February, so any production shortfall should be shared. Needless to say, the UK sees it differently and doesn't want any UK-based manufacturing to go to the EU. Hence we got this ugly diplomatic standoff.