Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine

[Alan Klein]

India is a rich county that has pharmaceutical manufacturers.  Why should they be allowed to steal another country's company's intellectual property?  Let them pay like everyone else. 

[degrub]

for the same reason the UK gave the US the design for the Merlin engine and fighter planes back at the beginning of WWII. Oh , and not to mention several key research findings from their "tubular alloys" project.

Call it lend-lease if you will, but it benefits the whole world if we can get the virus stamped down before natural selection takes another shot at us.

[Alan Klein]

for the same reason the UK gave the US the design for the Merlin engine and fighter planes back at the beginning of WWII. Oh , and not to mention several key research findings from their "tubular alloys" project.

Call it lend-lease if you will, but it benefits the whole world if we can get the virus stamped down before natural selection takes another shot at us.

Why would a company develop a drug the next time there's a virus if the government gives away their ownership?  Who reimburses the company for the loss of sales? Why shouldn't India pay for it?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why would a company develop a drug the next time there's a virus if the government gives away their ownership?  Who reimburses the company for the loss of sales? Why shouldn't India pay for it?

Don’t be naive, Alan. The Left wants a commie world with no private ownership, no property, no copyright (watch out, photographers!) no intellectual property.

[chez]

Why would a company develop a drug the next time there's a virus if the government gives away their ownership?  Who reimburses the company for the loss of sales? Why shouldn't India pay for it?

I thought you claimed Trump sunk a bunch of money into the development of the vaccine? Now you are playing the poor pharma card losing all their profits. Which is it here Alan, was the vaccine development funded as you claimed previously or not?

[Alan Klein]

Don’t be naive, Alan. The Left wants a commie world with no private ownership, no property, no copyright (watch out, photographers!) no intellectual property.

Now that you mention it, what Biden has done this with Covid vaccines, China will claim the same argument, that their "using" intellectual property of America and others is not stealing but just a continuation of good economic policy for the world and that America should get over the fact it's discoveries are being used by the Chinese. 

What's Biden going to say to Xi to counter that argument?  What a dope.

Pfizer, Moderna shares plummet after Biden administration backs a COVID-19 vaccine patent waiver
https://news.yahoo.com/pfizer-moderna-shares-plummet-biden-204800783.html

US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccines
https://apnews.com/article/intellectual-property-coronavirus-pandemic-business-global-trade-health-c2f1ba1e6e150dc6c081b8eb6fe4f1e5

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I thought ...

An extremely rare event.

[Alan Klein]

I thought you claimed Trump sunk a bunch of money into the development of the vaccine? Now you are playing the poor pharma card losing all their profits. Which is it here Alan, was the vaccine development funded as you claimed previously or not?

The American taxpayer provided support to some companies through the American government.  India didn;t pay for it.  However, the negotiated cost of purchasing the doses was included in their financial support.  So I assume if the government negotiators did their job, the final cost per dose was less to offset the upfront advances.  It's like I just made a deal to install an emergency generator.  I had to give upfront money on signing the job.  That's what the government did with the vaccines.

In any case, what claims does India or other countries have on intellectual property?  Why can't they pay for it?  Another question, is how can Biden give up the patents?  Was that part of the deal the government made?  Is Johnson protected because they didn't take government money?

In any case, profits should go to the American companies that developed the vaccines.   Why should we allow other countries to profit from it?  If they want the vaccines, pay the pharmaceutical companies for the vaccines or purchase a license from them to manufacturer the vaccines in their own factories based on the patented formulas.

[chez]

An extremely rare event.

Great one slob. And I "thought" you were intelligent. There I did it twice in one day...maybe you should try it.

[LesPalenik]

Why would a company develop a drug the next time there's a virus if the government gives away their ownership?  Who reimburses the company for the loss of sales? Why shouldn't India pay for it?

Angela Merkel and Biontech-Chef Şahin reject the US suggestion to release the C19 patent and take away the patent protection.

[JoeKitchen]

Why would a company develop a drug the next time there's a virus if the government gives away their ownership?  Who reimburses the company for the loss of sales? Why shouldn't India pay for it?

I was just listening to Richard Epstein on this, and there are so many negatives on why you should not do it, it is hard to list them all.  First, the companies would almost certainly fight it in court, so it will get mired down there.  Second, other countries are going to oppose it, so you will get mired down in the WTO and other international agencies with endless debates.  Third, the manufacturing will need to be created in many of these places first before you can manufacture the vaccines, which will take time.  Fourth, more then likely the reason for poor rates of vaccination in these countries is due to ineffective distribution in these countries, not limits to supply, so releasing these patents may not even have the desired results. 

It would be much easier and faster to renegotiate the federal contracts with these companies for more doses at a lower cost, and provide them, along with distribution help, as aid instead. 

But assuming this did happen, there is another negative to add that no one is really thinking about, who is held liable for a bad vaccine produced by a not so great lab?   Lets say you give up the IP and a shitty lab in one of these countries makes a vaccine that ends up having cryonic side effects, who pays?  That lab?  The US government?  The company that originally created the vaccine?  All of them?  This is a situation litigation lawyers are looking at and licking their teeth over. 

All you need is one creative litigator who comes up with some crazy argument to somehow insist both the USA, who released the IP, and the pharma company who originally produced the vaccine (for not properly giving instructions on the production even if what they happened to leave out was mundane and already common practice) are liable for one serious shit storm to start.  And as soon as the first creative guy gets his argument to win, all of the copycats will come out of the woodwork. 

[Alan Klein]

I was just listening to Richard Epstein on this, and there are so many negatives on why you should not do it, it is hard to list them all.  First, the companies would almost certainly fight it in court, so it will get mired down there.  Second, other countries are going to oppose it, so you will get mired down in the WTO and other international agencies with endless debates.  Third, the manufacturing will need to be created in many of these places first before you can manufacture the vaccines, which will take time.  Fourth, more then likely the reason for poor rates of vaccination in these countries is due to ineffective distribution in these countries, not limits to supply, so releasing these patents may not even have the desired results. 

It would be much easier and faster to renegotiate the federal contracts with these companies for more doses at a lower cost, and provide them, along with distribution help, as aid instead. 

But assuming this did happen, there is another negative to add that no one is really thinking about, who is held liable for a bad vaccine produced by a not so great lab?   Lets say you give up the IP and a shitty lab in one of these countries makes a vaccine that ends up having cryonic side effects, who pays?  That lab?  The US government?  The company that originally created the vaccine?  All of them?  This is a situation litigation lawyers are looking at and licking their teeth over. 

All you need is one creative litigator who comes up with some crazy argument to somehow insist both the USA, who released the IP, and the pharma company who originally produced the vaccine (for not properly giving instructions on the production even if what they happened to leave out was mundane and already common practice) are liable for one serious shit storm to start.  And as soon as the first creative guy gets his argument to win, all of the copycats will come out of the woodwork. 

I've been thinking about it.  This is just Biden trying to be Mr. Nice Guy,("the world loves me more than Obama"), knowing it's not going anywhere. He screwed up the southern border, Iran, climate control, North Korea, etc. reversing every good policy in place, he might as well screw this up too.   

[JoeKitchen]

I've been thinking about it.  This is just Biden trying to be Mr. Nice Guy,("the world loves me more than Obama"), knowing it's not going anywhere. He screwed up the southern border, Iran, climate control, North Korea, etc. reversing every good policy in place, he might as well screw this up too.

Dont forget inflation! 

I thought we would get a nice 6 to 8 month period where we would get some nice GDP growth, and then get it right up the ... with inflation.  But oh no, it seems like Mr. Inflation is not into foreplay and is coming at us dry too. 

On the positive note, now that inflation seems to be coming faster then what everyone thought, it, along with our true bipartisan savior, Joe Manchin, appears to be screwing up the entire Biden agenda.  So yeah, if I have to deal with some not so great inflation to keep Biden's radical plans to shove government even more into my life, I'll take it. 

[kers]

The U.S. government has endorsed a proposal to waive intellectual property protections for coronavirus vaccines.  Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative, made the announcement in a short press release earlier today:

The waiver, proposed by India and South Africa, is being discussed at the current World Trade Organization meeting in Geneva.  The idea is controversial on both sides of the Atlantic, and there are technical issues that are likely to make drafting waiver language that would be acceptable to the W.T.O. members both complex and time-consuming.

I understand the US bans exporting raw material needed to make vaccins. This is because of the Defense Production Act.
It also does not export any vaccin - all it makes stays in the US. 
Because of the lack of raw material the  production in india is limited, although they have the knowledge and equipment to make vaccins.
The UK does not export any vaccin; it is Europe that exports vaccins. About 50% of what it makes.

https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/07/european-leaders-urge-u-s-britain-to-match-eu-generosity-on-vaccine-exports

[Chris Kern]

I understand the US bans exporting raw material needed to make vaccins. This is because of the Defense Production Act.

That was true initially.  The U.S. government announced last month that it would be shipping raw materials needed for vaccine production to India.

Because of the lack of raw material the  production in india is limited, although they have the knowledge and equipment to make vaccins.

India does indeed have a large vaccine manufacturing capacity, but for traditional vaccines, not the new mRNA vaccines; producing the latter in India reportedly would require a transfer of technology, an investment in new factories, and the deployment of skilled workers that would take months if not years to complete.

Increased vaccine production by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, and export to parts of the world with serious deficits, appears to be the most viable solution to meeting the urgent needs of countries such as India and Brazil—as well as those of many other poorer countries.  This fairly clearly would require a coordinated international funding effort by the wealthier nations on both sides of the Atlantic.

(The Russian and Chinese governments also may make important contributions, but they appear to be determined to use their vaccine exports to serve their own foreign policy objectives rather than to participate in any international effort.  They also have been less than transparent about subjecting their efficacy and safety data to public expert review.)

[Alan Klein]

Update from a German vaccine manufacturer.  This is why Merkel was against the waiver.

BioNTech CEO: Patent waivers are not needed
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/552638-biontech-ceo-patent-waivers-are-not-needed

[Alan Klein]

New CDC guidelines.  Good news.

Vaccinated Americans now may go without masks in most places, the C.D.C. said.
In a sharp turnabout from previous recommendations, federal health officials on Thursday advised that Americans who are fully vaccinated against the coronavirus may stop wearing masks or maintaining social distance in most indoor and outdoor settings, regardless of size.

The advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention comes as welcome news to Americans who have tired of restrictions and marks a watershed moment in the pandemic. Masks ignited controversy in communities across the United States, symbolizing a bitter partisan divide over approaches to the pandemic and a badge of political affiliation.

Permission to stop using them now offers an incentive to the many millions who are still holding out on vaccination. As of Wednesday, about 154 million people have received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, but only about one-third of the nation, some 117.6 million people, have been fully vaccinated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/health/cdc-masks-guidance.html

[Chris Kern]

New CDC guidelines.  Good news.

Vaccinated Americans now may go without masks in most places, the C.D.C. said.

I was talking to a medical doctor when the new CDC guidance was released today.  His take on it: "This is public health policy, not science.  The CDC is trying to create an incentive for everyone to be vaccinated.  They're trying to reach the vaccine deniers and the people who just aren't making an effort to get vaccinated.  Nothing has actually changed."

He and I were alone in his office, both wearing respirator-style facemasks (his an American N95, mine a Chinese KN95).  We are both "fully vaccinated" and it appears the current vaccines are effective against the mutations of the coronavirus that are currently circulating in the United States, but he didn't remove his facemask and he didn't offer me an opportunity to remove mine.

[Alan Klein]

I was talking to a medical doctor when the new CDC guidance was released today.  His take on it: "This is public health policy, not science.  The CDC is trying to create an incentive for everyone to be vaccinated.  They're trying to reach the vaccine deniers and the people who just aren't making an effort to get vaccinated.  Nothing has actually changed."

He and I were alone in his office, both wearing respirator-style facemasks (his an American N95, mine a Chinese KN95).  We are both "fully vaccinated" and it appears the current vaccines are effective against the mutations of the coronavirus that are currently circulating in the United States, but he didn't remove his facemask and he didn't offer me an opportunity to remove mine.

So you recommend we shouldn't listen to experts at the CDC but rather to you and your doctor?

[Alan Klein]

So is the CDC lying to us now or before?