[double-a]

I don't understand why there's a comparison with the UK vaccination program at play here. Your comment is precisely the type of incendiary fallacy that OP is accusing the BBC if.

EU is claiming that AZ is breaching the contract it had with them. Whether they are in the right or not, what does the UK's relationship with AZ have to do with it?

[JumpCrisscross]

> I don't understand why there's a comparison with the UK vaccination program at play here

Because the EU wants AstraZeneca to export doses made in Britain to the EU.

[odiroot]

In order to fulfil the provisions of the contract the company willingly signed, and not out of spite for Britain, as far as I'm aware.

[JumpCrisscross]

> In order to fulfil the provisions of the contract the company willingly signed, and not out of spite for Britain

Correct. Just pointing out why Britain is relevant.

[double-a]

And has AstraZeneca claimed that this would cause them to fail on their commitments to the UK? Or are we presuming that because it benefits some other agenda?

[JumpCrisscross]

> has AstraZeneca claimed that this would cause them to fail on their commitments to the UK?

I believe the UK has made the claim that they have exclusive contractual right to domestically-made vaccines until a certain point. Not sure if AstraZeneca corroborated.

[eyko]

> Not sure if AstraZeneca corroborated.

Apparently so https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/head-of-astraz...

[hef19898]

INAL, but I'd say nothing. The contract includes the UK as part of the EU as far as manufacturing is concerned (paragraph 5.4). But kicking AZ already now with breach of contract is a bit wild. As is pushing false numbers regaridng efficiency of the vaccine for eople above 60 (or 65), as happened in Germany. Not quite a good way to motivate AZ to deliver, it rather makes it a legal question from the getgo. Which is, well, not good.