Pfizer is predicting that they will be able to produce 250 million doses month by the end of the year, so I guess they are getting there (depending on how long a period is acceptable).
Moderna (another mRNA vaccine) alone is estimating it will produce between 600M and 1B vaccines in 2021 already: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...
Curevac is on track to apply for authorization for another mRNA vaccine in Q2: https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Article/2021/03/22/CureVa...
It's not out of the question that the EU will be able to supply itself entirely with mRNA (or inactivated virus) past 2021.
The population you want to cover and how long it is allowed to take are both factors in whether production is a limit, so there isn't really one answer as to whether production rate is a factor.
Fortunately it seems lately that some treatments do provide relief to people who are already sick:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00650-7
https://www.dw.com/en/asthma-drug-brings-hope-for-covid-19-t...
Price and logistics aren’t really a concern that’s relevant for the EU and mRNA vaccines. It’s cheap enough and easy enough to handle.
They're simply betting on mRNA only, so AstraZeneca and J&J won't be needed anymore.
In Germany politicians don't think longer then the next TV/Internet shit storm cycle...
Politicians aren't incentivized to optimize for doing what's right for their constituencies or the greater good but instead they say whatever gets them (re)elected then do whatever their lobby friends who contribute to the party's fund tell them to do, while putting a positive spin on this for the great unwashed.
We have no system in place that holds politicians accountable for the damage they do throughout their careers.
Even when they are forced to resign due to various scandals, they often end up as "consultants" at the businesses they helped get rich with tax-payer money.
The EU is disputing the report in question. And even if it were true, they'd probably have some reason than what you're coming up with in the absence of all information, which is basically "let's kill some people".
Each mutation that impacts antibody reactivity also has a chance to impact infectiousness, and the proteins targeted by the vaccines are large enough that it isn't trivial to predict the outcome.
So we might need to do boosters, or we might be fine with the vaccines we have now.
Don't subsidize drugs/vaccines that don't work.
There are 100+ vaccines being worked on. We're fine.
Why not? Funding vaccine research seems a worthy endeavor even if some of the research doesn’t pan out. The end result doesn’t need to be an immediately usable vaccine in order for the time & money spent to be worthwhile. Even a completely failed vaccine project could yield a piece of information that helps ensure the next project doesn’t fail.
Most of the vast amounts of research funding given isn't really research, it is scaling up production - a much harder problem that needs much more money. Since we now know of some issues (that would be very hard to find before a large scale roll out - lets not put undeserved fault on anyone here) the labs can focus on them.
Because money is finite? Not every research grant gets funded. So let's start with the most promising ones?
Funding vaccines that are not meeting standards should be dropped so that standards can be met. These companies don't need money for R&D, they have enough and can recoup it if they create a product that the market wants.
If you have a choice, why get AZ? More over second shot is 3 months away, for mRNA it is at most 42 days away.
J&J has one shot, that has efficacy lower event than AZ.
US is vaccinated mostly using mRNA (because AZ took long to approve and J&J came at that time, but is now blocked).
In my country we have the most amount of Pfizer vaccine, AZ screwed us and didn't deliver so why bother with almost non-existent vaccine that has lower efficacy?
J&J delivered todays some vaccines, but I assume it won't do it anymore as it waits to see what happens with clothing.
Importantly, don't all vaccines currently authorised have 100% protection against death from COVID-19?
Edit: it was Vox, not Vice, and the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A
Both AZ and J&J have been proven effective. They clearly work. It might not be politically expedient for the EU Commission to emphasize that fact, but it is true nevertheless.
Remember when Italians found 15M vaccines at the factory? I don't know why AZ representatives aren't prosecuted for such behavior of the company.
So I think it is a good call to wait for the contract to end.
BTW. Work at ~72%, mRNAs are at ~91%. What would you choose if you had both at the table? And what would you choose if you have the 91% at the table and 72% one in the other room?
Is reducing the total amount of vaccines to EU from 500M to 200M in the whole 2021 also a dodgy political narrative against AZ?