As the comment you replied to asked; do you have an actual source for that? The "much quoted" thing is not a source, it is simply weasel words.
For what it's worth, some national-level politicians have said some negative comments about it, but I can't recall hearing any EU commission figures commenting negatively about it (being cautious about it; sure, but negative, I can't recall any). Happy to be proved wrong though.
Possibly worse situation in Germany where blatent misinformation was published regarding the Oxford vaccine. Consider the gravity of this given Germany's population is far more "anti-vac" than say the UK.
The EU and Germany/France in particular did a stellar job of destroying the Oxford vaccine's credibility.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It would be shooting itself in the foot to admit the vaccines it had bought in a group-buy scheme were ineffective or in any way sub-standard. Member states would be furious, and Ursula would have been gone.
This article has a summary of statements from different politicians - https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-eu-leaders-said-abo... The closest I can see for the EC is one from Ursula, with the article reporting:
"She then suggested the UK had compromised on "safety and efficacy" by approving the jab so early, despite the EMA reaching the same conclusions as the UK's internationally-respected MHRA which approved the vaccine."
(That is realistically just her attempts to excuse a slower approval process that ultimately reached exactly the same outcome)
That is not very nice to say.
!g astrazeneca 60% effective site:.eu :
First hit : https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-va...
Please note I blame them for the general narrative around AZ as being not trustworthy. It is very clear to see in comments from the Dutch public ( and I have seen similar sentiments at our DE neighbors ).
It does not help our press is not very critical, I'll give you that.
On the note of that press release, the title of the page is "EMA recommends COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca for authorisation in the EU", which I wouldn't consider anti-AZ, and reading the text it states in the same paragraph that it's talking about "reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in people given the vaccine".
Anyway, I didn't mean to offend, just calling out what I saw, others may have a different opinion to me of course.
However, this 60% number is for totally preventing a COVID infection. The AZ vaccine is just as much, or even more effective at preventing severe illness / hospitalization.
I do blame the EU commission for the general narrative about the AZ vaccine, as it has negative consequences directly with the public : in NL ( and in DE as well if I am not mistaken ), there are people who don't want the AZ vaccine because of this.
So I do blame the EU commission on endangering the general public health of its constituents.