“The EU’s sluggishness, bullying, pandering to risk aversion, and total lack of (short-term) accountability for its own decisions. AZ approval came three months after UK approval, Pfizer three weeks after. Supposedly this was mostly taken up with haggling prices down from crazy low to crazy low.”
The last sentence is uncharitable and wildly inaccurate. Do you have any evidence for this? Prior to approval, the contracts had already been finalized, and anyway, it’s not the EMA (Europe’s FDA equivalent) that is doing the haggling. AZ approval was delayed because of the shoddy quality of their studies (and even more so in the US). Why Pfizer took longer is unknown, but it certainly included, meanwhile leaked, working through problems like this:
For the Pfizer product, mRNA integrity for clinical batches came in at about 78%, compared with 55% for the proposed commercial batches, an EMA email dated November 23 states. That difference led to the concerns that Pfizer and the regulators worked through.
It is to the credit of the EMA that they did not publicly release these problems, thus not fuelling vaccine skepticism but instead taking the reputation hit of seemingly needlessly delaying the approval.
Here’s my source, “based on dozens of interviews with diplomats, Commission officials, pharma industry representatives and national government aides”. Here’s another, and another.
The EU’s priorities are revealed in the result: 25% − 45% lower prices. They actually sort of brag about it:
It seems to have been a mix of understandable coordination, show of force, price haggling, and liability haggling (which is just a kind of price haggling with extra politics).
Gallina was sooncalled into the European Parliament, where she repeatedly promised that drugmakers would remain responsible for any problems, even though the issue was proving a sticking point.
I hadn’t seen those leaks, thanks. Note that they did plenty to fuel vaccine hesitancy elsewhere. No opinion about attribution to the EMA vs the Commission.
Oh, there is not a shred of doubt that the EU delayed buying the vaccines in order to lower the price, and I agree that this was a disastrous decision that led to supply delays. This is however a separate question from approving the vaccine, which is what my objection was about.
You mean not publishing the truth? No I think that’s is bad, it’s more difficult to counter vaccine skepticism when organizations are not public and transparent, at least I don’t see any reason to think not.
The last sentence is uncharitable and wildly inaccurate. Do you have any evidence for this? Prior to approval, the contracts had already been finalized, and anyway, it’s not the EMA (Europe’s FDA equivalent) that is doing the haggling. AZ approval was delayed because of the shoddy quality of their studies (and even more so in the US). Why Pfizer took longer is unknown, but it certainly included, meanwhile leaked, working through problems like this:
It is to the credit of the EMA that they did not publicly release these problems, thus not fuelling vaccine skepticism but instead taking the reputation hit of seemingly needlessly delaying the approval.
Here’s my source, “based on dozens of interviews with diplomats, Commission officials, pharma industry representatives and national government aides”. Here’s another, and another.
The EU’s priorities are revealed in the result: 25% − 45% lower prices. They actually sort of brag about it:
It seems to have been a mix of understandable coordination, show of force, price haggling, and liability haggling (which is just a kind of price haggling with extra politics).
I hadn’t seen those leaks, thanks. Note that they did plenty to fuel vaccine hesitancy elsewhere. No opinion about attribution to the EMA vs the Commission.
Oh, there is not a shred of doubt that the EU delayed buying the vaccines in order to lower the price, and I agree that this was a disastrous decision that led to supply delays. This is however a separate question from approving the vaccine, which is what my objection was about.
Ah right! Yes, I misspoke; pardon.
You mean not publishing the truth? No I think that’s is bad, it’s more difficult to counter vaccine skepticism when organizations are not public and transparent, at least I don’t see any reason to think not.
Well whatever one may think of it, the EMA had legitimate concerns, and was not merely dragging its feet for negotiation reasons as the OP implied.