Of course, the chart would be read in the context of the AZ wars. Its importance in this regard is somewhat limited, though. /2
You can still have a debate on how to read the various contracts etc. The one line that is problematic is that any one country deserve a first shot at the vaccine because it invested more. The truth is: collaboration.
And if you are still in doubt: here’s another chart from the same people.
If advanced purchasing led to exclusivity clauses this risks collaborative R&D. What to do? A proposal: put a non-discrimination clause into each funding agreement. Applicable to all further developments and to be included in future contracts.
Always astonished by human capacity for mental exaggeration. Just take a look at the journey of public opinion on the UK. Starting point "a very competent country". (thread)
During the Brexit campaign, politics became disconnected from the civil service and some... let's say extraordinary things were said and done. At first people thought there must be a secret plan - precisely because of the amount of respect for competency.
But there was no secret plan. Suddenly people started to think "are we fundamentally incompetent? What is wrong with us?".
Allow me to tell you a short story of pharma patents in world trade. The story start in the old days of GATT. Where patents were decidedly not part of world trade law (thread)
In those old days, it was a decision of each country whether to grant patents or not. Each country had to think "will this be a good choice for us? an incentive for research? Or actually counterproductive exclusivity?"
But in some developing countries this was perceived as unfair. In the US some thought "we pay higher prices for innovation. You just get it for free". Pharma patents were central to the debate.
There’s a lot of muddled thinking on what the problem with export bans is. So... in the form of a Q&A, a quick overview (thread)
1) Is it the rule of law?
Two components to this, arguably. Is there a problem because it interferes with private contracts? Not really. Most regulatory power does. Take Brexit: it interferes with thousands of contracts. Or the UK ban on parallel exports of some medicines. What about international law?
A note on timing of contracts: The first sentence here is wrong. So those who tweeted at me that the EU signed first so it wins or that the UK signed first so it wins (yup, got both of those): both wrong. Interested why?
Suppose A signs a contract with B. Two days later it signed a contract with C. Both contracts are for delivering 100 widges. Result? A has to deliver 100 widges to B AND to C. It is obliged to deliver both according to the terms of the agreement.
Problems only arise if A cannot deliver on both contracts. What then? Well, A still owes the 100 widges to both parties. If there’s no term in the contract giving preference to one or the other or modifying the obligation - A will have to break at least one contract.
Curious fact of contract law: I can sell the same Picasso painting to 15 people. I am contractually obligated to deliver the Picasso to all of them. Each one has the same claim, unless that specific contract stipulates otherwise.
Also true if I don't have a Picasso painting.
And just for @SpinningHugo : if I conclude 15 identical contracts for producing 100 widgets, but actually only can produce 100 on times, the same problem arises: all 15 have a claim against me. Priority is only valid if in the contract.
Now I don’t know what was in these contracts. Let y’all battle it out. But it’s not won on the grand principles of contract law. It’s won on the specifics of the contract.
Includes such great terms as pharmacoviligance risk assessment and observed v expected analysis, even though it's in German. And it explains the timing of the decision of the PEI.
(Just in case: PEI= Paul Ehrlich Institut, the German federal institute for vaccines, sort of the Robert Koch Institut for vaccines)