Vaccines crisis shows need for countries to work together

A close-up of a vaccine vial which contains 10 doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine which has caused such controversy in Europe - Credit: Getty Images

Readers have their say on the EU vaccines crisis – and what it all means for the bloc.

I think Paul Knott with his column was particularly prescient in his views about this ongoing debacle. As readers of this great paper are committed Remainers, it is really hard to reconcile the EU’s recent actions about invoking Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol. But to be fair the dire implications of this mistake was rightly brought back from the brink and hopefully, will soon drop off the gloating headlines of our Brexit tabloids.

Perhaps much of this got lost in translation and a justifiable concern over the painfully slow vaccine rollout throughout the EU member states. This has become a nightmare and tempers and kamikaze actions have become the order of the day.

The government is rightly refraining from gloating at the great success of its fast track deployment of these life-saving vaccines and credit is due, it has been nifty and agile in its response whilst Brussels for many and varied reasons has been behind the curve.

This has been an unedifying episode and one the EU will shudder to look back on but lessons hopefully have been learned that countries must work together in defeating by the conduit of these vaccines this ghastly virus, which by its inherent mechanism can bring out the worst and best in countries and society as a whole.
Judith A. Daniels
Great Yarmouth

Differences in vaccination rates across the world are all about the vaccine supply: the percentage of the EU population that has been vaccinated is similar to that of Canada, though much less that of the UK or the US. However, it is disingenuous to suggest that a confused scramble of 27 separate EU nations placing separate vaccine orders would have given better overall results.

The EU model of joint ordering and equitable distribution has been copied by the African Union and by the Covax scheme aimed at supplying low- and middle-income countries.

The dispute of the EU with AstraZeneca has been presented as the EU demanding we hand over “our” vaccines, when it is about AZ contractual obligations.

The EU has argued that a production failure in AZ’s Belgian plant placed the company under an obligation to provide part of the UK production, as the contract refers to supply from four plants including two in the UK. In other words, the risk of an individual plant failure was shared across the contracts.

Some legal experts agree with this interpretation. However, AZ sources have suggested their contract with the UK gives Britain first claim on vaccines produced domestically: this appears to be in conflict with the contract signed with the EU.

I am not a legal expert, but I know what is fair. Both the initial supply of AZ vaccines to the UK and the whole of the Pfizer vaccine supply have come from the EU. We should have offered some of the AZ vaccine produced in the UK.

If the AZ British plant had failed, rather than the Belgian one, would we still have claimed that each country had exclusive access to “their” vaccines?

Giuseppe Enrico Bignardi

• Have your say by emailing theneweuropean@archant.co.uk. Our deadline for letters is Tuesday at 9am for inclusion in Thursday’s edition. Please be concise – letters over five paragraphs long may be edited before printing.