On 30/03/2021 19:08, nightjar wrote:
On 29/03/2021 21:09, Fredxx wrote:
...
So you're in denial that the UK got it's order in 5 months before
contracts were agreed with the EU where UK production was being ramped
up, and the untimeliness, or perhaps delays in EU Regulatory approval
is just a coincidence and not at all a consequence of their
contractual delays.

The UK purchasing process is less transparent than the EU one. Hence, I
have been unable to discover whether when the UK says it had orders in
place in July 2020 it means it had placed advance orders, as the EU did
around the same time, or it had placed firm orders, which the EU did
later. I would, however, be most surprised if the UK was able to place
firm orders for products that were not even known to work at the time. I
suspect that, like the EU it simply provided finance for the research on
the understanding that it was advance payment for orders that would be
placed if and when the vaccines proved to be successful.

As you say transparency is lacking but this publication:
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3226 "he UK government said that
the deals were commercially sensitive and would not say what it had paid
up front or whether it would get any money back if the vaccines did not
work."

"Has the UK pre-ordered a vaccine or drug before its approval before?
No, this is a first."

Is consistent with BBC radio articles that have mentioned a financial
commitment that enabled investment in production lines.

Or just incompetence with EU regulatory bureaucracy who could have
approved the vaccines in the same time as the UK if it had been
expedient to do so.

Regulatory authorities don't do what is expedient. they do what is
needed to confirm that a product is safe and that may take some longer
than others. If anywhere was likely to go for expediency, it would
surely be the USA, yet they were nearly a fortnight behind the UK in
approving their first vaccine, also the Pfizer vaccine.

I take your point, but I know in the USA they expect all documentation
at one go with a process, whereas I suspect (and I could be wrong) the
MHRA might have been more proactive/helpful.

Regulatory approval is fraught in the USA, even being on the wrong paper
size (even sent electronically) will get the application rebuffed.