Seems madness to keep producing something that has been replaced by a more appropriate product. Say the current vaccine became totally useless because of mutations would we still have to buy the contracted amount of it? Doesn't make sense to me.
I don't know. I'm just remembering from an article I read, and would like to know more. But I guess it comes down to how much needed to be invested to design the product in the first place. If we guaranteed to buy so much of the vaccine in order for them to recoup the research and production costs, then that would still have to be met, I guess, depending how far along in the process of making it they were (I don't know what sort of lead time this requires). They might be able to stop making it and switch to something else, but whether that would save much in terms of costs, I don't know. They might end up being paid, but not end up producing it if it's totally useless by then - but I suspect it wouldn't be totally useless.
Just like lots of countries invested in vaccines that didn't work. You don't necessarily get the money back because of that - it's a gamble, and the UK backed some that worked and some that didn't. I imagine that it's similar if the vaccine stops working - if you've promised to buy a certain amount of it, you're probably still liable to pay that, whether you still want the product in the end or not. I'm sure it's much more complicated than that really, but research has huge costs that will only be met by people investing in the potential for a product, regardless of the outcome. I'm sure the governments will have to invest in the potential for boosters, just to get the research and trials underway, even if they ultimately fail (which I don't think is likely, but of course would be a theoretical possibility).