So did the EU.
> Also remember the vaccine was developed by Oxford using a significant amount of UK government funding
And Biontech was developed with German funding. Did Germany insist on exclusivity? Maybe we should have...
So did the EU.
> Also remember the vaccine was developed by Oxford using a significant amount of UK government funding
And Biontech was developed with German funding. Did Germany insist on exclusivity? Maybe we should have...
- Most of the AZ vaccine for the UK is being made in the UK. AZ have said none of their vaccines have been sent from the EU to the UK.
- AstraZeneca said its agreement with the EU allowed the option of supplying Europe from UK sites, but only once the UK had sufficient supplies (due to the contract the UK negotiated) .
- A drop in confidence in the AZ vaccine means there are lots of unused vaccines. France and Germany have used only about half of the AstraZeneca jabs they have received, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).
- 10 million Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines have been exported from the EU to the UK.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56483766
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
Now why might they have only used half so far, of a vaccine requiring two jabs?
They are keeping the other half for the required 2nd jab.
For some bizarre reason, they are not confident about timely delivery of future supplies.
After the wild "let us suspend AZ and let us restart it in two days" ride, it will be much harder to get AZ into arms of European patients. Even here in the Czech Republic, where AZ wasn't suspended, the reverbations in the public are stark and all kinds of half-baked conspiracies started circulating. (An example: "Germans want to get rid of a junk vaccine and force it on us Slavic untermenschen, while they will only use more expensive and better Pfizer for themselves.")
[0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2...
(b) This wasn't without reason. AZ has significantly more severe side effects and is less effective.
(c) That said, I'd certainly still take it, it is highly effective at preventing the worst outcomes.
(d) That said, the whole "consumer confidence" narrative is a canard. Its effects don't come anywhere near the effect of the delivery shortfalls. It's so totally ridiculous that it does make me wonder where it is coming from.
How much did they fund before the initial order? I can't seem to find a source. All the results just talk about their down payment not the initial funding like the UKs £65m. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56483766