For once, collective action looks like the wrong thing to have done.

Why?

/1 https://twitter.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1279083531822608385

Buying collectively has two big advantages.

First you avoid a bidding war, pushing up the price.

Second if there is a finite amount of the thing you're buying, you can distribute it equitably, rather than on the basis of who grabs it first.

/2

But those advantages don't have any force in this case. Why?

First, the rich west shouldn't really care about the price. $5 a vaccine (for AZ) or $15 (Pfizer)?

Frankly, who cares. Compared to just the economic cost of lockdown, it is insignificant.

/3

Second (and this is the error the Commission keeps playing on) the vaccine shouldn't be thought of as a finite thing (though currently there aren't enough doses as needed).

What matter is the flow, not the stock at an given moment.

/4

The earlier the orders, the more manufacturing ramp up, for vaccines that work the better.

The UK's ordering early, and getting manufacturers to gain experience and ramp up capacity benefits *everyone* not just the UK.

/5

So, in retrospect, what might have been characterised as a "mad scramble" (ie buyers acting in competition with one another) would have been better for everyone overall than the rather more sedate collective action we have seen.

/6

The other lesson is the power of contract law. It doesn't matter where the stuff is made, absent tanks. Doses manufactured in the UK are not therefore "UK doses", or those manufactured in Belgium "Belgian doses".

/7

One way of thinking about it is that the buyer is buying a place in a manufacturing queue. You get what you're allocated under your bargain.

/ends