SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 16 2021 (IPS) – Vaccine developers’ refusal to share publicly funded vaccine research findings is stalling broader, affordable vaccinations which would more rapidly contain COVID-19 contagion. The pandemic had infected at least 109 million people worldwide, causing over 2.4 million deaths as of mid-February.
Anis Chowdhury
Avoidable delays in preventive vaccination are imposing terrible burdens on the world economy and human welfare, with economic disruption demanding more relief and recovery measures. They have cost globally, with developed countries contracting .
Avoidable vaccination delays
National capacities to cope with the pandemic have been largely determined by means and power. Thus, access to COVID-19 tests, treatments, personal protective equipment and other pandemic supplies has been severely lacking in and other poor countries.
At current vaccination rates, it would take “” to reach 75% global coverage, currently considered the minimum to achieve ‘’ against COVID-19.
Patent protections, vaccine production constraints and the rich country scramble will deprive more than 85 poor countries of public access to vaccines . As of 5 February, not a single dose had been administered in 130 countries with people.
Of the more than available by 8 February, the US, China, the EU and the UK had 78%, while ! Meanwhile, the African Union has only ordered less than half of what it needs to reach herd immunity, i.e., . Meanwhile, besides Brazil, other Latin American countries only have for less than a quarter of their population.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram
Supply shortfalls
By the end of 2021, total global capacity of the 13 leading COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers would of the needs of the world’s almost 7.7 billion people. Even if they all produce at maximum capacity, a fifth of the world’s population would not have access .
Rich countries the South African-Indian proposal to temporarily suspend relevant provisions of the 1994 World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to effectively block rapid scaling up of generic vaccine production.
The resulting “” is thus mainly due to vaccine suppliers’ , also limiting supplies and access. Meanwhile, rich countries’ grossly excessive vaccine purchases .
The US will soon have enough to vaccinate its population twice over, while Canada and Australia have booked enough to protect residents several times over. Exceptionally, New Zealand – which has also ordered several times its population’s needs – to freely share vaccines with its Pacific island neighbours.
Manufactured scarcity and prices
Global needs now greatly exceed available supply. Middle-income countries have joined the scramble, making onerous direct deals with vaccine suppliers, typically on worse terms than if they had bargained collectively. Unsurprisingly, vaccine prices vary considerably, by .
As countries have contract details, acceding to vaccine suppliers’ terms, lack of transparency has enabled abuses. And when forced to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, documents are heavily redacted before release.
Such limited transparency enables ‘vaccine imperialism’ as big power ‘vaccine nationalism’ impairs others’ access. Thus, following its with AstraZeneca, the European Commission (EC) banned vaccine exports to most countries outside the EU.
Double standards rule
In fact, cross-border enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) is relatively recent. successfully lobbied their governments for TRIPS inclusion in the 1994 WTO founding documents. This greatly strengthened and extended IPRs transnationally.
Now, as these non-transparent deals are disputed, European politicians are . EU President Charles Michel has warned of “urgent measures” demanding compulsory licensing, provided for by the .
This would require vaccine developers to facilitate generic production, which the developing country-backed proposal seeks for all countries. Nevertheless, the EU, other rich countries and their allies the request to enable rapid scaling-up of affordable vaccine supplies.
Publicly financed vaccine development
To accelerate vaccine development, expenses and risks have been mainly borne by governments, rather than by developers or private finance. The six top candidate vaccine developers have already received of public money, sometimes with .
Of the more successful, for research and development plus a premarket purchase commitment of US$1.53 billion. In Europe, from the German government and another from the European Investment Bank.
Yet, despite massive public financing, vaccine developers retain the IP monopoly right to . Thus, the from 2021 vaccine sales revenue of almost is delaying progress against COVID-19.
Greed kills, unless…
AstraZeneca promised Oxford University not to profit off any COVID-19 vaccines “for the duration of the pandemic”. However, its contracts allow it to declare the pandemic over as early as mid-2021. It could then for vaccines developed with public money for the university.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was ‘trialed’ on the South African population. Yet, it is paying – US$5.25 compared to US$2.16. This makes a mockery of “” and priority “” promises. Meanwhile, turning ‘ability to pay’ on its head, Uganda is than South Africa!
Having the greatest vaccine manufacturing capacity in the world by far, the Serum Institute of India has several contracts to for different countries. In India, it will sell 90% to the government and 10% to the private sector at a higher price.
Waiver can end pandemic
Vaccines produced generically at greater scale will be far more affordable, enabling more rapid containment of the contagion, infections, deaths and disruptions. Until nationally and globally, priority in allocation should be on the basis of urgent need, rather than ability to pay or political muscle.
The best way forward now is the proposal, still blocked by rich country governments at the WTO. It would enable all countries to affordably make or buy ‘generic’ vaccines. This would most effectively expedite containing the pandemic with the least loss of lives and livelihoods.
