2) FvB sees US TRIPS waiver support as a trade war on Germany:
“For the first time in biotech history, two of the three [successful] firms are not from the US. I smiled a little bit [when I heard it]. If the firms were all American I don’t think we’d have had this proposal”
3) The reporter Derek Scally notes that German opposition to the TRIPS waiver may be implacable:
“After quiet conversations with the founders of BioNTech and Curevac, chancellor Angela Merkel – and other EU leaders – pushed back against the idea.”
4) FvB shows some (vague) openness to voluntary licensing:
“Personally speaking I’d be ready to give a licence at no cost for a time if someone came from, I don’t know, Mongolia, & would like to produce for that region... Not for all time but for the particular purpose.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@CoppetainPU 1) As an academic who supports the waiver I didn’t find your thread ‘unpopular’ or problematic - you’ve just described the challenges (HT also to @TomMitcheson for RTing). I would like to add a few thoughts...
@CoppetainPU@TomMitcheson 2) The G20 was not obliged to offer an alternative text prior to this revised draft, but it would have been very helpful if it had. Instead the G20 has not even committed to negotiating a text at all, with the EU states the major hold out.
@CoppetainPU@TomMitcheson 3) The waiver has a political life as well as a legal one. In my view the waiver public debate & media attention have been very positive for highlighting global inequity, increasing transparency on production & distribution, and creating pressure to boost production
1) Very interesting @FT piece by Louise Richardson, Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, confirming *Oxford does not support the TRIPS IP waiver*.
Notably, while praising AZ, Richardson condemns other (unnamed) pharma companies for deriving ‘enormous profits’ from the pandemic.
2) Richardson also says these other (unnamed) pharma companies should share their vaccines, means & infrastructure.
She notes (with good cause) that Ox/AZ have acted more ethically than others - Ox/AZ is by far the largest contributor to COVAX.
3) Richardson argues the TRIPS IP waiver is not a panacea
(NB - this is also apparent to those who support the waiver - we argue it is part of a wider proposal/package to build up pharma capacity in LMICs)
A thread: 1) Oxford University, as a world-leading public institution, has a special duty to the global public. Instead of focusing on the £400m Vaccitech IPO, Oxford should show global leadership and support the India/South Africa WTO TRIPS IP waiver.
2) Credit where it is due: Oxford/AZ have acted more ethically than other providers such as Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer. A bilateral licensing deal is in effect between Oxford/AZ & Serum Institute India (SII). However, bilateral agreements, while positive, are ultimately limited.
3) Although SII has manufactured tens of millions of doses of the vaccine for India and developing countries as part of the international COVAX scheme, this falls woefully short of the billions of doses that are required.
The India/SA WTO TRIPS proposal is an IP waiver including trade secrets/know-how (not just patents). So ‘abolish the patents’ is not a magical slogan but shorthand for what India/SA have called for since late 2020:
waive patents + share knowhow + build production in global south
The complexities of vaccine production have always been evident & undeniable. But it was clear by Dec 2020 that relying on the pharma market production approach was not going to produce sufficient volumes to vaccinate the world. Even the EU has struggled to obtain doses.
From Jan the US/EU/UK should have thrown the entirety of their pharma-industrial capacity into (I) making vaccines in the West; and (II) helping to build capacity in the global south. A lot has been done on (I) but very little on (II).
A few critical comments on this new paper by @mercuriobryan on IP & COVID-19 vaccines/treatments. This is, I think, the first major academic paper that argues against the India/SA TRIPS WTO waiver so it deserves attention.
1) The paper accepts here that the TRIPS IP waiver may accelerate distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in the short term, but is concerned that the waiver could undermine the IP system’s incentives for R&D. What does ‘short term’ mean here?
2) The paper seems to downplay the ‘short term’ risk to developing countries by noting that Covax will begin providing 2billion doses to developing countries in the first half of 2021.