The UUK-USS pensions debacle & how we got here. Warning: this is a bleak thread...
1) The UUK-USS decision shows that UUK believes that a *mutual risk* pension fund is incompatible with the post-2010 UK HE system which sees universities in *market competition* over student income

https://twitter.com/Sam_Marsh101/status/1498965120449499136

2) How did we get here? It's a long story. But the essence is that George Osborne's post-2010 'reforms' have resulted in a fundamental reshaping of UK Higher Education (HE) towards an insecure market system that suits virtually nobody, as @ruawall pointed out last year

@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.

Several remarkable statements on the #TRIPS IP waiver in this @IrishTimes interview w/Curevac investor Friedrich von Bohlen (FvB):

1) FvB - “Germany’s post-war constitution says that human life is inviolable, I’d say the same about intellectual property”

irishtimes.com/business/healt… 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”

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.

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.

blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/0… 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.

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

https://twitter.com/hyperplanes/status/1386386912408219649

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.

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.

https://twitter.com/mercuriobryan/status/1363382733473415168

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?