Does anyone know why all of the geopolitical discourse in the UK and Europe has been around arguing over a small supply, rather than about increasing manufacturing capacity?
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-bionte...
Thanks for this link. I would much rather that the media kept me up to date on this instead!
I can relate to that, which is also a reason why I now _try_ to consume weekly newspapers (like the linked "Die Zeit") instead of the daily/hourly short-lived news. In my experience the latter tend to report more about "drama" and focus more on negative things, exactly like you said.
I also saw your remark in the other chain:
> I was referring more to the discourse, which seems to be about heightening nationalistic sentiments by pitting governments against each other fighting over a small stockpile
And that also makes sense. I'd say that's something especially prominent nowadays due to Brexit. The amount of news highlighting the failures of the EU certainly got an uptick in the UK and so did the news portraying UK's vaccine import as "egoistic" in the German media. There are certainly more shades to that, but it's pretty obvious from the newspapers as well that the EU and UK are just frustrated with each other currently.
They have looked into increasing supply (see the kerfuffle about the Halix plant) but in the end it seems that the process AZ is using scales poorly. (Not sure how many were produced by the SII, probably not much more than that)
I think AZ delivered approx. 25Mi to the UK and 30Mi to the EU. Compare with Pfizer who delivered somewhere close to 300Mi doses already.
Your comment makes absolutely no sense.
For example, in software, maybe it takes a single developer a year to build a compiler for some advanced language and we can speed it up to 3 months by adding some people. But could we get to a week by adding 12x more? We can‘t and it may be the same with vaccine production.
I was referring more to the discourse, which seems to be about heightening nationalistic sentiments by pitting governments against each other fighting over a small stockpile, rather than highlighting the progress/pitfalls/ongoing support needs of collaborative initiatives to provide scaled solutions.
But maybe this is just a sign that I need to broaden my media inputs, always a good thing to do.
But the thing is: while EU agencies like the EMA are involved in these processes, and also monetary grants to finance production increases have been provided in several cases, the EU has a limited number of actions available to "increase manufacturing capacity", especially in the short term (the new BioNTech plant for example was already bought in September, so it took over half a year to get it retrofitted for production). We cannot simply - like the US or UK - declare that everything produced within the EU stays within the EU, with no exceptions. Or well, technically we could, and that would certainly increase the supply in the EU in the short term, but that would have geopolitical repercussions that might in the worst case damage the EU's vaccine production in the long term (because it is at least partially dependent on pre-products sourced from outside the EU), but will for sure cause a lot of damage in international relations. The EU is effectively the world's biggest vaccine exporter in terms of doses, especially when you focus on the mRNA vaccines which have the highest efficacy and least complications and are thus the most sought-after. Limited to just that class of vaccines, the EU even is the single relevant source right now.
The epic fuck-up of the EU body that was responsible for ordering the vaccines in the first place might in the end turn out to be a bad thing for us EU citizens because of slower vaccination, but a good thing for geopolitical relations/tensions as a whole. That's because this fuck-up kind of deters the EU from taking the same isolationist "our citizens first" stance that the US took - politically such a move would now clearly be regarded as a cheap and, most importantly, illegitimate attempt to fix the failure of negotiating proper and broad supply contracts with manufacturers using brute political force, and that effectively stops the EU from taking this step, even if it would technically be a possibility. As a result, all the countries in the world without significant mRNA vaccine production capabilities on their territories at least have realistic access to a single source for their imports, as long as they negotiated supply contracts with the manufacturers early enough. This situation has for example been the key enabler for the huge success of the Israeli's highly acclaimed vaccination campaign, which was powered by vaccine supply from Europe.
To say that the EU as a whole wouldn’t block exporting is a bit premature when we already have precedent.
This is in stark contrast to 0.25 million doses AstraZeneca vaccines that were blocked, which is what you are referring to. That has been the only blocked export as of now, at least according to my information.
We may thus indeed have precedent, but it's a very specific precedent which doesn't really serve as an example for a broad vaccine export ban. That's because the legislation on which this precedent was based does only allow such action in the first place if the manufacturer is lacking behind in serving the existing contracts with the EU (a situation in which AstraZeneca is in, but not BioNTech/Pfizer, the top exporter by number of doses in Europe) or if the target of the shipment is a country that is significantly ahead in its domestic vaccination campaign when compared with the EU. This means that there isn't even suitable legislation to instantiate a broad export ban in the EU right now, but just for smaller, more targeted bans; of course this would ultimately not pose an insurmountable hurdle as EU legislation can be changed by the EU itself, but it sends a pretty clear signal that a blanket ban on exports is nothing that's even considered right now.