A load of rubbish. He is essentially arguing that although AZ has demonstrably lower primary efficacy and antibody response, it has a superior T-cell response. This makes no sense and must be due to the large amount of wishful thinking added to the vaccine mixture. Both AZ and the mRNA vaccines interact with the immune system in the same way (not all the others do, Novavax for example), but the effects on antibodies and T-cells appear to be proportional. Measuring antibodies is easy, measuring T-cell activity is somewhat harder, but measuring clinical effects overrides both, and mRNAs are clearly more effective. AZ is a good vaccine, though, and has a place. It is worth also noting that the JCVI chose not to offer it as a booster, a decision they would not have taken had there been any evidence that it offered at least a similar additional effect as the mRNAs.
The reason the rest of Europe is now doing badly where the UK is doing better is that last winter the UK had a large cull of the most vulnerable and they can't die again this winter, and the UK also brought some of its winter pressure forward into the summer. Overall vaccination rates are now similar to the UK in a number of European countries. Arguably, given that they have lower (or no) use of AZ means the effective population immunity is better in a number. Eastern European and Balkan countries lag behind most badly.