> It said the development of new vaccines that more closely match the mutated forms of Covid that are now circulating meant there was a "surplus of available updated vaccines", leading to a "decline in demand" for its vaccine which is "no longer being manufactured or supplied".
Seems reasonable, more effective alternatives to your product exist and rather than compete they're just going to exit the market.
Strange, you seem to have left this paragraph out: “However, its reputation was dented as unusual blood clots emerged as a rare side effect of the vaccine, and the UK turned to alternatives.”
Because of the strong reaction against vaccination negationists, it seems we sadly are leaving stuff completely out of the debate and some topics have become forbidden. It's rather unfortunate, because this is a valid point.
Nobody is against talking about that, nor is leaving it out.
Lets remove everything about COVID and it being a vaccine, or a pharma product at all, and rephrase it: "A company has a product in a crowded marketplace, and demand for that product category has dropped; the product is an effective and safe product, but has a marred reputation due to early issues with the product that have been solved; instead of investing further into the product, the most profitable thing is to exit the market."
Nobody would disagree with such an analysis, only anti-vaxxers and pro-corpos have a narrative they're invested in to spin it any other way, and they aren't 100% unrelated narratives. I think AZ made the right decision to bail if it wasn't the very best product it could be, and other companies legitimately are doing it better.
Seems reasonable, more effective alternatives to your product exist and rather than compete they're just going to exit the market.