Vaccine woes and the perils of export controls

The hope sparked by the development of effective Covid-19 vaccines is in danger of dissolving into acrimony and protectionism. Even worse, the squabbling over supplies has broken out between the world’s wealthiest countries, when the far greater challenge of inoculating less well-off countries has scarcely begun. Potential export controls on EU-made vaccines — a move widely seen as targeting Britain because of a shortfall in EU supplies of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine — risk triggering an escalating spiral of tit-for-tat blocks that could be tricky to remove even when supplies improve.

The European Commission, handling procurement across the EU but not normally a buyer of medicines, was slow to conclude contracts. The UK government signed a swifter, tighter deal with AstraZeneca. Britain also invested early in the supply chain, reducing risk for the manufacturer. Brussels did eventually pledge €336m to build up manufacturing of the AstraZeneca jab — but again did so late.

Despite its strengths in innovation, meanwhile, AstraZeneca had little vaccine experience. In its UK and EU contracts it over-promised and under-delivered. When difficulties arose at a Belgian contractor, rather than share the pain of supply shortfalls across its European customers, as Pfizer did earlier this year, it honoured one contract at the expense of the other. Yet the fact its UK contract had tougher safeguards does not nullify its EU commitments.

There is irony, of course, that the EU is now scrambling to secure a vaccine in which Europeans’ confidence has been dented by hyper-caution from regulators over potential side-effects, and baseless aspersions — notably from French president Emmanuel Macron — over its effectiveness.

But the supply shortfall has left governments and EU institutions facing complex political and moral trade-offs. Downing Street is keen to harvest the political rewards of its slick vaccine rollout after bungling much of its coronavirus response. It faces a potential backlash from younger voters, whose prospects have suffered from locking down to protect the vulnerable and the elderly, if it appears to be handing jabs to the EU just when it is the younger generation’s turn to be immunised. Yet its global standing faces harm if it is seen to be hoarding vaccines for its young when thousands of elderly and vulnerable people are still dying in a worsening European third wave.

EU export controls should not be the answer. They do nothing to increase supply but are more likely to reduce it. Even in extremis, democratic, free-trading governments should resist preventing companies from fulfilling contracts with others. Export blocks would risk retaliation, with knock-on effects on intricate global supply chains.

The UK, European Commission and AstraZeneca should instead hold talks on a compromise that could assist the drug company to meet its European obligations. Goodwill is sadly in short supply in the aftermath of Brexit. But with the UK also negotiating over large vaccine orders from India, there is scope for it to allow AstraZeneca to divert some production, possibly a stockpile at a Dutch plant, to the EU. It could argue that helping European countries to tame their infections increases the hope of Britons being allowed to take foreign holidays this summer, for which there is an increasing clamour.

Shortages will soon end in Europe as more vaccines are approved and manufacturing expands. There may even be a glut. But the need for vaccinations will be with us for years, requiring scientific and industrial collaboration — not a descent into protectionism.