I'm honestly shocked at seeing that @TheEconomist, a paper that is usually careful with facts, has its frontpage story on EU vaccine problems riddled with wrong information. It tells a lot about how UK media have changed after Brexit 1/x

@TheEconomist accuses EU of "penny pinching" citing "leaked list of prices" as proof of EU having spent "much" less than US on jabs. But that list includes only fraction of prices paid by EU countries, as leaked AstraZeneca-EU contract confirms. EU, US prices are similar 2/x

@TheEconomist cites UK big investments on vaccine research that would justify UK faster rollout, but crucially gives no numbers. Why? Because numbers show EU paid faaaar more than UK in vaccine research, production, incl. for UK AstraZeneca plants which refuse exporting to EU 3/x

@TheEconomist says EU talks with vaccine makers were slowed down by EU Commission which has little competence in making vaccine deals. The paper argues that the Commission led talks with firms. The truth is that talks were led by health experts from EU countries. 4/x

@TheEconomist says Sanofi vaccine debacle blew "huge hole" in EU supplies. False! Sanofi was always planned for later in 2021. EU instead relied heavily on AstraZeneca for beginning of the year. Hole was made by Oxford/AstraZeneca which overpromised, prioritized UK over EU 5/x

@TheEconomist describes US, UK "fast-track" approval of jabs as being the same, accuses EU of excessive checks. False. US approval took longer than EU for Pfizer, has not yet come for AZ. UK approved shots in a week relying only on company data, drawing criticism from Fauci 6/x

@TheEconomist softens now its earlier rants vs EU vaccine nationalism as numbers of EU huge exports show exactly the opposite. Meanwhile it keeps lauding UK vaccine success which is based on UK-first policy and heavy vaccine nationalism, and no export. 7/x

@TheEconomist puts together AstraZeneca, other vaccine makers in paragraph about shortfalls on EU supplies. Forgets to say there has been only one cut in supplies to EU: Oxford/AstraZeneca's from 300m to 100m by end of June while was supposed to be main supplier until then 8/x

@TheEconomist admits Oxford/AZ gave "relatively more vaccines to Britain" than to EU. Quite mild way of putting it! Till late March AZ had shipped more doses to UK than to EU which is 7 times bigger, contracted more doses, incl from UK plants which have yet to deliver to EU 9/x

@TheEconomist says prioritization by Oxford/AZ of UK over EU is proof of EU's bad negotiating team. No evidence offered though. Truth is EU, UK contracts are both based on "best effort". Exclusive deal with AZ cited by UK govt contradicts clause in EU-AZ contract. Ask the lawyers