Not to be dismissive or snarky, so apologies if it comes off that way, but I can't help but feel someone's got the wrong end of the stick with this anecdote.
I don't think so. It was a pretty detailed and lengthy discussion of the point. The practice has been receiving the Pfizer vaccine in batches of 200 glass vials, each intended to contain 5 doses, so 1000 doses per batch. Once the glass vials are warmed up, they have to be reconstituted in order to make up the vaccine. The doctors carrying out the reconstitution process found that in fact they were getting enough for 6 doses rather than 5 from each vial, potentially meaning that they could vaccinate 1200 people with each batch rather than 1000. However, each batch is only supplied with 1000 syringes and needles. They asked whether they could use the practice's existing supply of needles and syringes in order to administer the 'extra' 200 doses, the needles and syringes essentially being interchangeable with the ones supplied with the kit, but were told that they could not, and they could only use additional syringes and needles if they were of the same brand as those supplied with the batches of vaccines, which they didn't have. When they informed the assurance person whose sign-off they need in order to use the vaccine that they only had needles and syringes from a different brand, they were told that in that case they couldn't use the extra 200 doses and should dispose of them.
Not sure there's really much scope for misunderstanding there.