News Flash 420: Weekly Snapshot of Public Health Challenges

News Flash Links, as part of the research project PEAH (Policies for Equitable Access to Health), aim to focus on the latest challenges by trade and governments rules to equitable access to health in resource-limited settings

News Flash 420

Weekly Snapshot of Public Health Challenges


A GUIDE TO GLOBAL HEALTH DIPLOMACY Better health – improved global solidarity – more equity 

Anirban Mahapatra on why the world needs a ‘one-health approach’ 

Beijing vaccine diplomacy goes beyond political rivalry  

International cooperation to align approaches for regulation of COVID-19 vaccines and medicines 

We need a Global Vaccines Taskforce, not just a British or European one 

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Weekly Update 

Latest Covid-19 Statistics from African Countries 

Damn Covid Pandemic, Let’s Begin Exploiting You For Fairer World by Daniele Dionisio

Covid-19 Vaccines – On Fairness and Distribution by Iris Borowy 

Incoming WTO Director-General calls for ‘third way’ towards scaling up manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines 

COVID-19: global vaccine promises ring hollow 

MSF calls on European Council to enable global production of COVID-19 medical tools 

In Brief: COVAX to pay for COVID-19 vaccine-related injury 

Ghana receives first historic shipment of COVID-19 vaccinations from international COVAX facility 

MSF responds to news of first deliveries of COVID-19 vaccines through the COVAX Facility 

Audio Interview: The Real-World Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination 

Who Gets a COVID-19 Vaccine and Who Pays? The Need for Economic Analysis 

EMA starts rolling review of Celltrion antibody regdanvimab for COVID-19 

Big Tech and the digital response to Covid-19  

 Russia reports first cases of humans catching bird flu H5N8 

Global Citizen Launches ‘Recover Better Together’ Campaign – Guinea Launches Ebola Vaccinations – Nigeria & Zambia Studies Show High SARS-CoV2 Infections

Why is Ebola back in Guinea?  

Malaria in Southern Venezuela: The hottest hotspot in Latin America 

Malaria is a cause of iron deficiency in African children 

Africa ‘not on track to reach 2030 HIV/AIDS targets’ 

Tuberculosis hits more men than women. But not in Afghanistan 

DNDi: HAT Platform Newsletter No. 21 

Youth, women bridge Africa health gaps 

French climate bill could be more ambitious, says High Climate Council 

The Global Insecurity of Climate Change 

Mitigating the climate change risks to global security: an opportunity for UK leadership in 2021 




Damn Covid Pandemic, Let’s Begin Exploiting You For Fairer World

Everything we do during and after this crisis must be with a strong focus on building more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change, and the many other global challenges we face. 

UN Secretary-General António Guterres 

by  Daniele Dionisio

PEAH – Policies for Equitable Access to Health


Damn Covid Pandemic, Let’s Begin Exploiting You For Fairer World

The Case For Health



In today’s planetary arena there’s stringent need of an array of inter-sectorial policies the governments should embrace to achieve equitable global health goals while ending the misalignment among the right to health, trade rules, and the patent system.

This would require non-stop multi-sector engagement worldwide to pressure governments into making “U-turn” changes, implementing common measures on shared agenda. Really hard bet in these times of neoliberal globalization underpinning unfettered trade liberalization, whereby collusion of national-transnational corporations  with their political counterparts comes as no surprise.

As reported, ‘In the contemporary policy environment, one element in particular connects health inequalities around the world: Neoliberalism as a set of norms that guide and justify policy, ultimately equating financial worth with moral worth. The connections are not only conceptual of course; they are also material and institutional, operating through such channels as campaign money, capital flight and the networks of power and privilege epitomised by the World Economic Forum, where the global super-elite meet to worry about the threat posed to their fortunes by the rest of us’.

Just a couple of examples:

– Unbridled TRIPS-plus measures still enforce intellectual property (IP) protection beyond what is required by the WTO TRIPS agreement. These measures encompass making it easier to patent new forms of old medicines that offer no added therapeutic benefit for patients (the so-called ‘ever-greening’); restricting ‘pre-grant opposition’, which allows a patent to be challenged before it is being granted; allowing customs officials to impound shipments of drugs on mere suspicion of IP infringement, including ‘in transit’ products that are legal in origin and destination countries; expanding data exclusivity beyond WTO’s request for data protection against unfair commercial use only; extending patent lengths beyond 20-year TRIPS requirements; and preventing drug regulatory authorities from approving new drugs if they might infringe existing patents.

– Investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions are in the crosshairs now that most currently being negotiated or finalized trade agreements are charged with introducing ISDS clauses whereby many forms of government regulations, including TRIPS-compliant price cuts of medicines, could be sued by the patent owners for making pointless or eroding their expectations.

As maintained: ‘..the exigencies of market competition and enormous corporate power mean that governments privilege economic priorities and corporate interests over social and environmental needs, even in settings where democratic institutions and decision-making processes are marked by integrity and representativeness….

As such, no wonder that the safeguarding principles for equitable access to medicines embraced by the WHO and the UN system as a whole are under attack and quite watered down now that the stranglehold of neoliberal policies is mushrooming worldwide. In this context, some WHO Member States disappointingly run contrary to WHO directions while placing corporate interests and for-profit policies before people right to the equitable access to health.

These circumstances are a bad omen at a time when the US administration is lobbied by the pharmaceutical corporations, European authorities are doing so little to check the tide of ‘me-too’ drugs, and the European Medicines Agency keeps testing new medicines only in terms of safety and efficacy compared with a ‘pretend’ drug.

And this occurs even as a WHO strapped for public financing sees its role thwarted by a number of international bodies and private donors, meaning overlapping/duplication of initiatives risk and undue pressure towards earmarked programs.

Under this scenario, which is plagued by misalignment, litigations and frictions among the parties, governments are seemingly not ready to embark on what advocated at the opening of this editorial as an opportunity to advance public health over political and commercial interests.

Conversely, ‘Rome wasn’t built in a day’, and any concerted efforts to break the wall will trustily pave the way for access to quality assured, affordable drugs and vaccines on non-discriminatory basis in the near future. Indeed, while hinted points above remain challenging issues to be addressed, they can be however. As the old saying goes ‘where there’s a will, there’s a way’.

These insights align with PEAH core messages, including leitmotif whereby governments around the world should tackle neoliberal globalization in an efficient manner to ensure that citizens enjoy equal health benefits on an equitable basis, while advancing public health over political and commercial interests.

Actually, non-stop tips for administrations worldwide emerge from PEAH vision and contributors’ takes. These entail, besides other measures:

-Ensuring that leading institutions and organizations enhance working with health ministries to boost needs-driven rather than market-driven rules.

-Pushing for a coordinated response to fight corruption, while refraining from being caught with corporate holdings in a circle of mutually reinforcing political and commercial interests over public health concerns.

-Rejecting pressures towards adopting heightened IP rights while banning TRIPS-plus clauses and ISDS provisions.

-Pushing for open knowledge and new approaches to pharmaceutical innovation that do not rely on the patent system and de-link the costs of R&D from the end price of medicines and vaccines.

-Backing generic competition as the most effective way to lower medicine prices in a sustainable way.

That said, is there a way, against all odds, to actually move good intentions into practice? Astonishingly (but not that much), ill-fated Covid pandemic may definitely serve as an opportunity to move the envelope further as long as stakeholders get their act together.

Reportedly, ‘By accepting that new health technologies were determined by Big Pharma’s economic interest at the expense of millions of people’s lives, we’ve naturalized our lives pricing and the understanding of health as a commodity – and an expensive one!… The good news is that the COVID-19 pandemic, exactly by collecting our debts from the past, is also giving us the opportunity to stop, think, catch up on our obligations and put our house in order. Giving visibility to the reality of people affected by NTDs during the current crisis doesn’t mean to establish a hierarchy among the diseases. It’s quite the opposite. It’s the strong statement that we won’t be able to overcome this challenge if we continue to accept a system that ignores the suffering of millions of people as if they were less valuable and their needs were less urgent. Epidemics and diseases, regardless of our will, will continue to emerge. What we can change is how we look at those affected by all of them and how we face them. It’s precisely at this moment when humanity is called to fight an invisible enemy that we have the unique opportunity to notice the silenced reality of those who have waited, for a long time, to be seen’. 

This entails, first and foremost, answering the concern by people in resource-constrained countries and discriminated settings: Now that Covid vaccines are on the market, will my family and I have access to them? Will our health systems be able to buy them?

To the point ‘…In early 2021, a total of 12.8 billion doses of vaccine had been reserved, the largest number committed to the EU, the US and COVAX. The unequal distribution of confirmed purchases was clear, with 7.8 billion doses bought by high-income countries, 4.2 billion doses to upper-middle-income, 1.2 billion doses to lower-middle-income and 582 million to low-income countries. In an already unequal world, in which the Covid-19 pandemic further accentuated inequality last year, it seems morally and politically unacceptable that a heavily slanted vaccine rollout should let it deteriorate even more.’

That’s the gap the COVAX  initiative is currently trying to fill in, though presently it seemingly falls far short of expectations.

Disappointingly, even worse performances on fair access to vaccines are being registered as for other initiatives, including the continued obstruction by rich countries to a proposal from South Africa and India to waive intellectual property protections on Covid-19 drugs and vaccines.

In this connection, several strategies to improve vaccine distribution equity were just highlighted by Iris Borowy in her exhaustive analysis, whereby the pros and cons are weighted as regards:

-Strengthening COVAX

-Suspending patents / providing free licenses

-Donating extra doses when domestic need has been (partially) satisfied

-Donating/selling unilaterally.

These issues add, under an overarching perspective towards fairer world, to Judith Richter’s reflection Defending and Reclaiming WHO’s Capacity to Fulfil its Mandate  focused on WHO’s role in the international health arena, whereby a number of possibilities are brought up relating to language, propaganda even, and power, which could contribute to reclaiming WHO’s capacity to unequivocally work for peoples’ health during and after Covid-19 pandemic.

Meanwhile, Africa looks like it would take its own momentum from Covid-19 scourge. Examples include the Africa Medical Supplies Platform (AMSP) as a non-profit continental online procurement platform designed to resolve Africa’s COVID-19 medical supply predicament. Besides strengthening Africa’s supply management system and bolstering local production of pharmaceuticals, the main objective of the platform is to provide equitable access to medicines and medical supplies for all participating countries.

All in all, which lessons have we learnt from Covid pandemic? Certainly, that how countries cope and invest for their future during and after Covid-19 will determine the recovering and coming back to what we used to know as “our normal lives”. Meaning that the present time is the opportunity countries’ governments have to take and move forward social support to fairly sustain their vulnerable groups, as well as to support the productive sector with financial incentives and equitable measures. As inalienable pre-condition, this ties to awareness thatIn the current pandemic scenario, public health experts need to look at the establishment of animal health care and the strengthening of an ecosystem where human and animal will live congruently to protect human health. This integrated, holistic and harmonious approach to protecting human health is referred to as one world one health, a name coined by the wildlife conservation society. A better understanding of the ecosystem is needed to protect public health’. 

In a nutshell, to achieve Covid-19 far reaching recovery humankind is required, at government, corporate and civil society levels, to set green economy in motion first, while managing to curb inequalities and inequities throughout poor and rich nations. Echoing George Lueddeke’s words, ‘The greatest challenge in our path to building more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies, underscored in Survival: One Health, One Planet, One Future, lies with making a fundamental paradigm or mindshift  from seeing the world through a strictly  human-centric lens to taking a wider more inclusive eco-centric view – ensuring the needs of humans are compatible with the needs of our ecosystems.’















Covid-19 Vaccines – On Fairness and Distribution

There is a widespread feeling that the ongoing system of distribution of Covid-19 vaccines is underperforming and unfair. But just what could a realistic and fair system look like? Which conceptual, practical or moral criteria should be used? Who should decide?  This paper reviews recent developments and considers the arguments for possible pathways

 By Iris Borowy

Distinguished Professor

Center for the History of Global Development

Shanghai University, China

 Covid-19 Vaccines – On Fairness and Distribution



After 2020 was the year marked by the spread of Covid-19 and various forms of contact restrictions and lockdowns, 2021 is set to become the year of vaccinations – and the discussions and that go with it.

The mood with regards to the vaccine at the beginning of the year should have been jubilant. The development of not only one but several vaccines defeated all expectations. In April 2020, optimistic scenarios foresaw having a vaccine within 12 to 18 months, i.e. between April and October 2021. In reality, vaccinations began in December 2020. This speed has been quite spectacular and might have been a reason for celebration. However, any joy about this success has been short-lived and soon gave way to increasingly bitter complaints, accusations and conflicts about disappointing production and unfair distribution.

In Europe, countless commentators have criticized the slow roll out of the vaccines and the lower-than-expected deliveries. As the manufacturers BioNTech-Pfizer and AstraZeneca informed the EU in January that they would provide far fewer doses during the first quarter of 2021 than originally promised, while deliveries went to the US, the UK and Israel, Spiegel captured the prevalent impression of a “vaccine disaster” and described the growing frustration and anger across Europe: “one of the most affluent regions in the world, is proving to be unable to quickly protect its citizens from a deadly disease, while other countries are showing how it is done.“ The situation led to a profound disillusionment with the EU, especially in Germany, where many people vehemently blamed the EU for the „vaccines fiasco“ and felt that they could have done better on their own. Many pointed to quicker vaccination in Israel and the UK and to the apparently much more successful strategy of the US to buy early and big. The mood in the US was less rosy. Here, deliveries also fell far short of expectations, and some media were left wondering why America’s vaccine plan “was failing so badly”.

Thus, while many people in high-income countries complained about not receiving more vaccines faster, other commentators accused them of having too much already. Journalists, NGOs and other pundists presented accusations of wealthy nations gobbling up vaccines at the expense of poor nations. Already in September 2020, Oxfam warned that “wealthy nations have purchased 51 percent of the promised doses of leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, while representing just 13 percent of the world’s population” and that the me-first attitudes of rich countries would delay or prevent the vaccines from reaching the people who needed them most in all parts of the world. Similar numbers were brought forward by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, a coalition of NGOs including Oxfam, Amnesty International and Global Justice Now. In an article, published in December 2020, they pointed out that rich countries had secured enough vaccines to vaccinate their populations several times over. The article singled out Canada for having bought “enough vaccines to vaccinate each Canadian five times” denouncing it as “the biggest hoarder of COVID-19 vaccine pre-orders in First World.“

The accusations have increased since the beginning of 2021. In January, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa stated at the World Economic Forum’s virtual Davos Agenda that rich countries were hoarding vaccines excluding the majority of the world population. On 10 February, UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore and WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus issued a joint declaration criticizing that of 128 million vaccines administered until then, more than three quarters had gone to just ten countries accounting for 60 percent of global GDP, while almost 130 countries, home to 2.5 billion people, had not yet received any. This strategy, they explained, would cost lives and make people less safe everywhere. These numbers were taken up by UN Secretary General António Guterres during a high-level meeting of the UN Security Council on 17 February 2021. He  condemned a “wildly uneven and unfair” distribution of vaccines and called vaccine equity “the biggest moral test before the global community.”

Clearly, there is a widespread feeling that the ongoing system of distribution is underperforming and unfair. But just what could a realistic and fair system look like? Which conceptual, practical or moral criteria should be used? Who should decide?  This paper reviews recent developments and considers the arguments for possible pathways.

The Arguments

There is no denying that rich countries have ascertained vastly more access to vaccines than poor countries. Nevertheless, the situation seems more complicated than a simplistic black and white picture. A closer look at the arguments reveals some of the problems at hand. When the People’s Vaccine Alliance hurled its accusations against Canada in December 2020, none of the six vaccines the Canadian government had procured had actually been approved. In other words, they were all still undergoing trials, and at the time there was no way of knowing whether all, some or none of them would eventually come about. Two months later, three (BioNTech-Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford-AstraZeneca) had received international authorization, two (Novavax and Janssen/Johnson&Johnson) were still undergoing trials and one (Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline) had delayed its own vaccine program because of unsatisfactory results during trials, deciding instead (upon prodding of the French government) to help produce vaccines of its competitor BioNTech-Pfizer.  It is possible that one or even all three of them will never become usable vaccines, in which case Canada would receive only half of the pre-purchased vaccines and would have spent half of its investment on unsuccessful R&D. The other half would have helped finance the successful development of vaccines, which people all around the world urgently need. In fact, at the time of writing in mid-February 2021, Canada had received only an extraordinarily small number of vaccine doses, coming from the EU because companies producing in the United States are subject to an export ban. Henrietta Fore, Executive Director of UNICEF acknowledged the essentially beneficial nature of these early orders, explaining that “[i]nitially, “over-contracting” was justified because countries were investing much-needed capital into promising research and development.” At that point, the pre-ordering had the effect of accelerating the process of making these vaccines come into existence, a crucial – though hardly sufficient – precondition for getting vaccines for all countries, including low-income countries in the global South. Thus, Canada forms an example of being both perpetrator and victim of a system of vaccine nationalism, as well as an active participant in a system in which early governmental investments have enabled drug manufacturers to produce vaccines at record speed.

Another line of criticism has focused on pharmaceutical companies and a system of production based on for profit corporations. Oxfam argued that this situation exposed “a broken system that protects the monopolies and profits of pharmaceutical corporations and favors wealthy nations, while artificially restricting production and leaving most of the world’s population waiting longer than necessary for a vaccine.” Similarly, a Washington Post commentator accused the companies of enriching themselves at the expense of indigent people, arguing that “the greed of naked capitalism will be the major obstacle to keep the world safe from the virus and its political and economic shockwaves.” While the pharmaceutical industry has a well-established record of being no stranger to greed, highlighting it as the single most important reason in determining the distribution of vaccines overlooks a lot of context. In a situation, in which governments are offering much-needed research funds in return for options on potential future doses, can companies really be blamed for engaging in contracts that provide them with finances which accelerate – or even make possible – their development of vaccines? It seems problematic to argue that they should either not have accepted these funds or should have accepted them and then broken those contracts. Meanwhile, at a time when people in their countries are dying or losing their livelihoods because of economic restrictions, it is problematic to argue that governments should not have used pre-purchases as a tool to speed up obtaining vaccines for their populations if they had the opportunity to do so.

The problem about this is clearly the mixture between the need for life-saving drugs, on the one hand, and company profits on the other. Some critics have considered this mixture unethical in itself. Heidi Chow, from Global Justice Now has called on governments to ensure that the pharmaceutical industry put “people’s lives before profits.” However, private companies are commercial entities which have to generate profits in order to survive. Those that don’t will fail (and no longer produce vaccines). Indeed, the development of drugs, including and especially vaccines, is risky business. Developing a vaccine typically takes more than ten years and costs up to $500 million. It also typically involves many unsuccessful attempts, with over 90% of efforts failing between animal studies and the registration of a final product. Even successful efforts may turn out to be economic failures if the demand evaporates with a decline of the disease. In the past, companies have repeatedly engaged in vaccine development at their own peril. For example, several companies undertook research for a vaccine against Ebola after the outbreak of the disease in West Africa in 2014. They all took major losses on their investments. The first vaccine, originally developed by a Canadian government laboratory and produced by Merck, was approved in 2019, years after Ebola and any interest in a vaccine had died down. In a market system, therefore, profits are necessary not only to cover the R&D costs for actually marketed drugs, but also the costs of potentially numerous and expensive failed attempts. Still, this does not eliminate the question of how much profit is ethical and how much constitutes greed.

Besides, as many observers have correctly pointed out, R&D for Covid-19 vaccines has received large sums of public money, thereby shifting much of the risk from the private to the public sector. This fact has been used to argue that companies should not be considered the owners of the vaccines they have developed and are manufacturing but that they should be considered the public property of those societies that financed them. For instance, in an open letter to then president-elect Biden, Oxfam America argued that “US taxpayers have already committed more than $10 billion in public money towards a COVID19 vaccine. A vaccine paid for by the people should work for the people and remain of the people.” (bold in the original) The problem about this reasoning is that billions of people around the world have not paid or committed tax money towards a vaccine. Arguing that people should be entitled to a vaccine because they paid for it suggests that people who have not paid should not be entitled. It is a basically a capitalist and nationalist argument which does little to address the global discrepancy of access.  Distributing Covid-19 vaccines according to people’s needs rather than wealth requires that people receive the vaccine without having paid for it while other people, who have paid for it through their tax money, would need to wait. By implication this means that a global distribution of Covid-19 vaccines purely according to people’s needs requires that stake holders, including companies, governments and citizens, act altruistically, potentially putting the interests and the wellbeing of themselves and those near them behind those of unknown people far away. But pure altruism is not the human condition. Neither is pure selfishness. In the real world, people make decisions on the basis of different, sometimes contradictory incentives. If the aim is to find a system that provides sufficient vaccines to all those who need it as fast as possible, the question might be which system provides the best mixture of incentives.

The challenge is not new. It has been around and discussed with regard to pharmaceutical production for many years. Elsewhere, I have argued in favor of a system of pharmaceutical production which makes knowledge freely available, making use of innovative research frameworks such as open-source drug research. But Covid-19 has formed a particular challenge to global vaccine management, similar to regular drug production but involving specific requirements of quantity and speed. This may not be the moment for long-term systemic transformations but for pragmatic strategies that promise quick results. While it is too early for a full analysis of the process, a limited overview of the last year suggests some strengths and weaknesses of potential strategies. 

The Record of 2020

The vaccination of a population consists of several separate but inter-related steps: Based on an initial understanding of the virus, its structure and how it works, vaccines must be developed, produced to scale, distributed and finally administered to populations. For a successful vaccination process all of these steps must work well. Every one of them is complicated and dependent on a variety of contexts.

Initially, much of the laboratory research was marked by an unprecedented degree of international cooperation.  As early as 12 January 2020, Chinese scientists made public the viral genome. In ways that went completely against conventional methods of scientific research geared towards publications, scientists then openly shared their findings on online repositories or WHO conference calls, sometimes within hours. An understanding of the science was much facilitated by its similarity to known coronaviruses, notably SARS and MERS. It took only days until the German Center for Infection Research at Charité, Berlin, which was headed by a renowned expert on coronaviruses, had developed a diagnostic test and shared it with WHO for free use. Some companies also tried to chip in. Medtronic made its ventilator design freely available, waiving its IP rights and Lego allowed users to modify its Lego Mindstorms products for robotics instruction in middle schools. However, pharmaceutical companies showed little enthusiasm for such shared innovation.  In May 2020, WHO, together with over 40 member states, established a Covid-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP), as a platform for sharing information, knowledge, data and other resources of intellectual property to prevent unnecessary duplication of efforts and speed up the development of products helpful against the pandemic. The program experienced not a single contribution during the next eight months. Vaccine research in the pharma industry unfolded in largely conventional ways, in competition with one another.

Work towards a vaccine began almost immediately.  In China, the Nasdaq-listed biotech company Biovac started a research program in late January, less than a week after Wuhan went into full lockdown. Around the same time, the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), a consortium established at the World Economic Forum in 2017, co-founded and co-funded by a combination of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and a growing list of countries, became active.  On 23 January, CEPI announced funding to two companies (Inovio and Moderna) and the University of Queensland to develop a vaccine. At the same time in Germany, a small company in Mainz, BioNTech, initiated its project “Lightspeed,” designed to produce a vaccine.

The scenery of vaccine developer virtually exploded. In April 2020, there were 115 candidates for vaccines, of which 78 were confirmed cases with publicly available information. Of the latter, 56 were being developed by industry, 22 by academia, the public sector or other non-profit organizations. 36 confirmed developers were situated in North America, 14 in China, 14 in other Asian countries and Australia, and 14 in Europe. By early July 2020, international researchers were working on 158 vaccine candidates, of which 135 were in preclinical or exploratory stage. By the end of the month, the number of vaccine candidates had grown to more than 200. While these developers included some of the large pharmaceutical companies, such as Janssen (belonging to Johnson & Johnson), Sanofi, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, early on that small, comparatively unknown and inexperienced laboratories were taking the lead. Many accelerated the process by conducting phase I to III trials simultaneously, reducing a process that usually takes years to merely months. The process carried economic risks, because expensive phase II and III might turn out to be wasted if a substance ended up not passing phase I. But it was a risk considered necessary because speed was of utmost importance not only to stop the pandemic as fast as possible but also to be competitive in a very large field of contenders for the first vaccines. Compressing the usual time frame even further, manufacturers also needed to begin preparations for scaled-up production in parallel, before they had a functional vaccine in hand or before they even knew if they would ever have one.

Bringing an existing vaccine up to scale for mass production is a complicated and expensive process. It involves handling sensitive live microorganisms in complex processes which are often difficult to control, turning naturally variable biological processes and products into standardized products of high efficacy and safety.  This requires not only specialized equipment but also the meticulously coordinated collaboration of numerous experts in planning, process development, equipment modifications, process adaptations, quality controls, and registration, easily amounting to hundreds of individual but interlocking actions. It requires that engineers, scientists, lab technicians, logistics organizers, maintenance crews, smart builders and overall leaders cooperate in ways that are “simultaneously science and technology driven as well as patient focused.”  Even within the same company, bringing this process up and running requires a minimum of six months in ideal circumstances. Transfers from one company to another easily takes twice as much. In the case of Covid-19, many of the earliest vaccine producers were small companies faced with this challenge for the first time.

Given this context, it was clear early on that up-scaling production quickly would be expensive and would require massive financial investment, and that, no matter how much funding was available, it would take time before production would be sufficient for the global population. There would be months, possibly years, in which vaccines would be available for some people but not for (potentially many) others. It was also clear that anything that helped up-scaling production would reduce distributional conflicts. Different stake-holders reacted in different ways.

One initiative aimed at ensuring broad access to future vaccines. In late April 2020, a large group of organizations, including the WHO, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CEPI, the Wellcome Trust, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) and the World Bank, established the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, self-described as “a groundbreaking collaboration to accelerate development, production and equitable access to COVID-19 diagnostics, treatments and vaccines.”  As a pillar in charge of organizing an equitable distribution of vaccines, it created COVAX. The stated goal of COVAX was to provide access to at least 2 billion doses of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines to both high- and low-income countries by the end of 2021. Originally, the hope was that it would become the central program for the purchase and distribution of global vaccines. This hope quickly faded as governments began investing in funding vaccines for their own use.

Most is known about the US effort entitled Operation Warp Speed, named after the fictitious speed of the Star Wars movies, which funneled massive financing into the process while providing a mechanism to coordinate the cooperation between private companies and various governmental bodies. Discussed since April 2020 and announced on 15 May, the concept was to invest massive funds (originally $ 10 billion, later increased to $18 billion) with the stated goal of providing 300 million doses of safe and effective vaccine by January 2021. The program took into account that this included funding some attempts which would eventually fail but that, in total, this program would massively speed up the process towards a successful outcome for some others.

Since March 2020, at least sixteen drug manufacturers have been reported to have signed contracts with Operation Warp Speed or to have received indirect support, including Johnson&Johnson, AstraZeneca, Cyptiva, Eli Lilly, EmergentBioSolutions, Pfizer, Fujifilm, Regeneron, Vaccitech, Moderna, Novavax, Merck, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Vaxart and Inovio. They all received millions or billions of dollars in public funds for purposes such as research, scaled-up production of materials, specialized equipment, and contract development. Moderna alone reportedly received $4.1 billion for vaccine development, clinical trials and manufacturing. Part of those funds included the advance-purchase of hundreds of millions of doses of (potential) vaccines and options for future purchases. Pfizer, which partnered with the small German company of BioNTech, received almost $ 2 billion through Operation Warp Speed in July 2020 in an advance purchase for 100 million doses of vaccine with an option on up to 500 million more after approval. Meanwhile, the scientific development mainly took place within BioNTech, supported by $445 million from the German government. Operation Warp Speed was essentially a nationalist program: though non-US companies could take part, vaccine candidates from China were excluded, and the advance-purchases were unapologetically reserved for Americans. More important to President Trump, he hoped to be able to announce a US breakthrough in vaccine production before the presidential election on 3 November.

By September 2020, there were 321 vaccine candidates, including 33 in clinical trials. In contrast to half a year earlier, large multinational corporations played a large role. Of the vaccines in trials, eleven were being developed by Chinese organizations, seven were supported by the US Operation Warp Speed, eight had received funding from CEPI and were included in the portfolio of COVAX.

The European Union (EU) adopted a strategy that was both similar and different. Compared to the other major players, the situation of the EU was more complicated in that it had to reconcile the policies and interests of 27 member countries. In large part, its position was influenced by the disheartening experience of the early phase of the pandemic, where EU countries had engaged in a free-for-all scramble for protective gear and individual countries had competed against each other in global markets provoking justifiable criticism of lack of solidarity. Leading politicians were determined not to make the same mistake again and insisted on common approach in which all member countries should work together, buy vaccines collectively and distribute it equitably among member states according to population size. Eventually, all member states agreed and the EU provided € 2.7 billion for negotiations with six companies whose vaccine candidates looked promising (AstraZeneca, Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson&Johnson, BioNTech-Pfizer, CureVac, Moderna, Novavax and Valneva). But the process took time so that the EU contracts came later than those negotiated by other countries, notably the US and the UK, who received a certain priority for delivery dates. Nevertheless, the EU commission eventually did achieve favorable conditions regarding pricing and product liability for mixed portfolio of – not-yet existing – drugs, a total of 2.3 billion doses of potential vaccine for a population of approximately 450 million people. The approach practiced solidarity within the EU but not between the EU and the rest of the world.

Comparatively less is known about development outside of North America and Europe. A program of at least similar size was conducted by China. By August 2020, thirteen Chinese companies were working on vaccine development, of which nine were conducting human trials, more than in any other country. Chinese researchers faced the enviable problem that by the time they started phase III trials infection rates in their country were too low to allow such trials, so they reached agreements with Brazil, Indonesia and the UAE to conduct trials there. As the first country, China began vaccinations of its population in the late fall, before phase III trials had been finished, a method considered risky by some observers. By mid February 2021, China had approved three vaccines developed by Chinese companies: the state-owned Sinopharm, the private company Sinovac and the vaccine manufacturer CanSino Biologics. The vaccines had undergone phase III trials but data had not been published in peer-reviewed international journals yet. Data from different countries indicate an efficacy of between 50%  and  91.25% for Biovac and 79% for Sinopharm.  Vaccines by six other manufacturers were in phase I-III trials. Without doubt, substantial public funds went into these processes, but nothing is known about the sums.

The Emergence of Effective Vaccines

The first vaccine to receive national authorization was the Sputnik V vaccine produced by the Gamaleya Research Institute, which was approved in August 2020. However, since at the time the vaccine had not finished phase III trial yet, this news was met with skepticism among scientists. Internationally, the situation changed in December 2020, when the vaccine by BioNTech-Pfizer was the first vaccine to receive emergency authorization, first in the United Kingdom, quickly followed by the US, EU, WHO  and many other countries, and soon after the full recommendation by the EU European Medicines Agency. Around the same time, the Chinese government announced conditional approval to a vaccine by Beijing Institute of Biological Products, a subsidiary of the state-owned conglomerate Sinopharm. International approvals for vaccines by AstraZeneca and Moderna soon followed. Of these, mRNA vaccines by BioNTech and Moderna appeared to have a very high efficacy of over 90%, while vaccines by Oxford-AstraZeneca have an efficacy of between 70 and 90 %, and Sinopharm of approximately 79%. In February, a publication in the prestigious Lancet confirmed a high efficacy of Sputnik of over 90%. It was quickly authorized in 26 countries. Within a few weeks, the focus of attention in many countries shifted from how to control dangerously high infection rates through economic and social restrictions to how to get a critical mass of people vaccinated.

In early 2021, the situation was ambivalent: Several manufacturers are supplying vaccines, but scaled up production was below expectations and far away from the demand, leading to bitter struggles. A long list of vaccines seemed near the end of phase III trials and approaching approvals, but Merck, which had been working on two vaccine candidates together with Institut Pasteur, announced giving up these attempts in January. Coming on top of the delay in the Sanofi-GlaxiSmithKline vaccine, this news highlighted that a successful outcome was hardly guaranteed for any of the numerous other vaccines in preparation. Of the existing vaccines, those by BioNTech-Pfizer and Moderna represent a new generation of vaccines, using an innovative method on the basis of mRNA, which appear very effective but are technologically difficult to produce, with special challenges of technology transfer.

In early 2021, a total of 12.8 billion doses of vaccine had been reserved, the largest number committed to the EU, the US and COVAX. The unequal distribution of confirmed purchases was clear, with 7.8 billion doses bought by high-income countries, 4.2 billion doses to upper-middle-income, 1.2 billion doses to lower-middle-income and 582 million to low-income countries. In an already unequal world, in which the Covid-19 pandemic further accentuated inequality last year, it seems morally and politically unacceptable that a heavily slanted vaccine rollout should let it deteriorate even more. Besides, as many commentators have observed, in a globalized world, nobody can be safe from a pandemic until everybody is safe. At the moment, several strategies to improve distribution equity are being suggested and/or followed, all with different implications:

  1. Donate extra doses when domestic need has been (partially) satisfied

This measure has repeatedly been demanded, among others by UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore who urged “wealthier nations who have bilaterally purchased high volumes to consider donating them through COVAX.” This seems like the easiest and also the most likely strategy. Policy makers in rich countries would not need to spend any extra money, nor would they need to face their citizens’ wrath when explaining why they send vaccine doses away while they are still wanted in their own countries. In fact, the prospect of donating extra doses when the domestic need was satisfied has already been explicitly mentioned both in the EU and the US. In the US case, a government official put forth the strategy in May 2020 by comparing it to familiar direction during plane flights. He called it the “oxygen mask approach” explaining “We want to get our oxygen mask on first and then we’re going to help the people around us.” So, prospects for such donations are looking reasonably good, and at present, CEPI is negotiating with self-financing countries “to ensure that, once a certain percentage of their population has been vaccinated, a percentage of the doses secured through bilateral deals would be shared through the COVAX Facility.”

Given the potentially large quantity of extra doses if all or many of the pre-purchased vaccines actually materialize, this strategy may activate substantial amounts of vaccines, available basically free or very modestly priced. However, it may take many months before this stage is reached and there are obvious moral and health-related problems with this strategy. It lends itself to the somewhat simplistic but also partially accurate accusation of the rich having the poor wait before throwing them leftovers of a life-saving drug. Besides, vaccinating the people of the world according to nationality or financial status instead of vulnerability or infectious potential risks prolonging the pandemic, increasing the risk of mutations which may or may not be preventable by the vaccines and may, therefore, jeopardize the vaccination success in already vaccinated population in high-income countries.

  1. Donate/sell unilaterally

This policy has been adopted primarily by Russia, India and China who have taken the lead in providing Covid-19 vaccines to low-income countries in the global South. All countries have adopted vaccine diplomacy as a form of soft power. For China, it represents a strategy of visible solidarity and forms a way of improving its global image, which had suffered during the early phase of the pandemic. For India, home to one of the largest pharmaceutical industries in the world, it offers a method of meeting its Asian rival in an area of relative strength. On 15 February 2021, the Chinese ambassador to Zimbabwe handed over a donation of 200,000 doses of the Sinopharm vaccine, promising another batch of 600,000 doses for sale and further donation to 57 more African countries. A deal of 38 million doses has been announced with Peru, the country that, for a while, suffered the highest Covid mortality rate worldwide. On 17 February, China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi declared that China had donated vaccines to 53 developing countries, exported vaccine to 22 countries and had launched research and development cooperation on Covid with more than 10 countries.

In a similar move, Russia has sold up to 100,000 doses of the Sputnik V vaccine to Colombia and up to 25 million doses to Argentina. Latin American countries have been particularly hard hit by Covid 19 and have been eager to buy Sputnik V. By mid-February 2021, a total of approximately 200 million doses of Sputnik V had been sold to 20 countries, while more than 50 countries had placed orders for the vaccine. Sputnik is very attractive to many countries since it is easier to store than, for instance, the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine and only costs half the price, while peer-reviewed data indicated it is 91.6 percent effective. Crucially, Russian deals have also included having Sputnik V produced by companies in India, South Korea and Brazil.

However, their transfers are dwarfed by those of India., which has exported 1.6 billion doses to 20 countries since the beginning of 2021. Relatively wealthy countries, like South Africa, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates, have paid for the deliveries, but reportedly 37% of transfers have been donations. Thus, India has dispatched one million doses of a vaccine to South Africa, and India’s external affairs minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, also announced donating 200,000 doses of vaccine for 90,000 UN peace keepers.

The obvious benefit of this measure is its speed at a time when speed is essential. Besides, for many countries, these deals have seemed at present the only possibility to have access to urgently needed vaccines at a time when they find themselves crowded out of trade with Western companies. These bilateral exports have, therefore, been of immense help to a number of Southern countries. Besides, Southern governments often find trade negotiations with governments or state-owned companies easier than with private companies, because considerations of potential economic losses or product liability play no role or are superseded by political interests. Politically, this process can be expected to foster South-South cooperation. Specifically, for China the situation is a major opportunity to position itself as a partner to Southern countries and as an important pharmaceutical producer, if it manages to deliver as hoped and promised.

The disadvantage is above all its quantitative limitation. It is unclear on what scale the existing programs can be maintained given the domestic vaccinations needs of the countries concerned. In China, where a mixture of severe lockdowns, contact tracing and border controls have been remarkably successful at keeping the country (almost) free from the disease since its first outbreak in early 2020, exports were facilitated by the fact that there was less of a perceived need for rapid large-scale vaccinations inside the country. The Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information announced that China would have the capacity to produce 1 billion doses of the Sinopharm vaccine, and generally, there would be enough vaccine both for domestic and foreign vaccination programs. Indeed, according to data compiled by the South China Morning Post, China has already shipped at least 46 million doses of ready-made vaccines or their active ingredients around the world, and hundreds of millions more are.

However, in the long run, all countries will need to balance foreign and domestic requirements. Thus, high exports of vaccines may appear less attractive when countries with high vaccination rates in other countries will allow a return to pre-Covid levels of openness and mobility which China might want to join. Similar considerations may apply in India and Russia. Meanwhile, the lower efficacy of the Chinese vaccines means that higher quantities may be required to reach herd immunity.

By contrast, at present no Western democracy shows any signs of adopting a similar policy. Almost everywhere, governments are under substantial pressure to provide vaccines for their populations as soon as possible, particularly in countries which had been hard hit by the disease (or had so botched their policy responses) as to suffer high infection and death rates. Realistically, there seems little chance that Western countries with high infection incidence within their borders would divert already scarce vaccines to other countries. This contrasts with the approach taken by Russia, China and India, which have all exported or donated substantial quantities of vaccine to other countries despite vaccination rates of between 1 and 3 % in their own countries. The beneficiaries have clearly been people in middle- and low-income countries who are otherwise having difficulties buying vaccines commercially.

The country that showed most unapologetic determination to have its own population vaccinated as fast as possible has been Israel, where 82 % of the population were vaccinated by mid-February, followed by the United Arab Emirates (55 %), the UK (26 %), the US (18 %) and Chile ( 12 %). Even regionally and within existing alliances, solidarity and common actions have been fragile. When EU supplies were disappointingly slow, the Hungarian government bought 550,000 doses of Sinopharm vaccine from China, and the British tabloid Express commented with a headline of “Thank God we left!” By February 2021, the US, then under the Biden administration, had not announced any intention to provide any vaccine to other countries, either bilaterally or through COVAX. Clearly, in most countries, taking care of your own first, is not considered selfish but responsible policy. It is possible that this approach will soften as larger parts of domestic population as vaccinated and considerations of foreign policy interests will loom larger, but at the moment this is speculation.

However, there are some signs that increased international cooperation would work through multilateralism rather than unilateral donations or sales.

  1. Strengthen COVAX

Like individual countries and the EU, COVAX engaged in the procurement of vaccine candidates, holding a portfolio of ten candidates in November 2020. It aimed at obtaining 2 billion doses of vaccine and distributing it among both developed and developing countries in a way that it would reach at least 20 percent of countries’ populations. This goal, therefore, was never enough to cover entire populations of low-income countries, and reaching this goal was further compromised when pre-purchases by high-income countries took up much of scarce vaccine and when financial support was slow in coming. In September 2020, President Trump announced that the US would opt out of COVAX because of its ties to the WHO and its supposedly overly friendly attitudes towards China. At that time, the pledged funding amounted to a mere $ 2.5 billion, with the biggest contributors to the ACT-Accelerator were the UK, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Norway. By December 2020, more than sixty countries had signed commitment agreements with COVAX, and financial pledges to the to the ACT-Accelerator, including COVAX, picked up somewhat during the following months, reaching $ 6 billion by mid-February 2021, with the UK still top of the list of donors, followed by Canada, Germany, the Diagnostic Consortium for Covid-19, Norway and the Bill-and-Melinda-Gates-Foundation. Another $ 4 billion were projected. This was progress, though the sum still left a funding gap of $ 27.2 billion considered necessary for the planned goal. However, prospects improved during the February 2021 digital summit of the G7. President Biden, who had already declared his decision to rescind his predecessor’s policy and to rejoin the WHO and support COVAX,  announced donating $ 2 billion to COVAX and another $ 2 billion at a later stage when other countries had honored their commitments, Germany likewise promised an additional € 1.5 billion for COVAX while the EU promised to top up its support to € 1 billion. These new donations effectively doubled available funding.

Perhaps more important, arrangements with manufacturers have also come in. AstraZeneca took the lead in June 2020 by doing a $ 750,000 agreement with CEPI and Gavi over 300 million doses of the vaccine (which, they claimed, was at no profit). They also reached a licensing agreement with the Serum Institute of India to supply one billion doses to low- and middle-income countries. In January 2021, Pfizer-BioNTech promised to supply Covax with up to 40 million doses during the first quarter of 2021 at a “not-for-profit” rates. Sanofi and Johnson&Johnson have likewise made commitment of 200,000 and 500,000 doses, respectively, though neither vaccine has been approved yet. Conspicuously missing is Moderna, whose research had been jump started by $ 900,000 from CEPI more than a year earlier. China has also offered 10 million doses to COVAX, a step which was welcomed by the head of CEPI, though like all others, Sinopharm and Sinovac vaccines would first require WHO approval, expected in March 2021. Seemingly modest, but actually very helpful might be President Macron’s proposal for high-income countries to donate 5% of their vaccine production to COVAX.

The first deliveries of COVAX vaccines are expected in late February or early March. According to the WHO, COVAX is on track to meet its goal of distributing 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, including 1.3 billion to 92 lower income countries.

  1. Suspend patents / provide free licenses

A more far-reaching demand has been to put an end – or at least to suspend – pharmaceutical companies’ intellectual property rights. The People’s Vaccine Alliance, for instance, called on pharmaceutical companies to openly share their knowledge in the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, so as to produce a “People’s Vaccine.” In October 2020, the governments of India and South Africa, both countries with a formidable pharmaceutical industry and high infection rates, have called on the World Trade Organization (WTO) to suspend intellectual property (IP) rights related to COVID-19 with regard to vaccines, medicines, and other new technologies needed to control the pandemic. The debate has a long history, going back at least to the bitter conflict about patent rights regarding HIV-Aids medicine during the 1990s, and the proposal cited past cases in which Pfizer has enforced its patent on pneumococcal vaccine, effectively forcing companies in India and South Korea to close the production of alternative versions of the vaccine. The call was supported by nearly 100 low- and middle-income countries, but immediately rejected by the United States, the European Union, Britain, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, Australia and Brazil. The arguments of both sides are well known: the former argue that waiving patent rights would enable many manufacturers to produce life-saving generic versions, while the latter insist that keeping IP rights is essential to incentivize innovations.

Several experts have weighed in on the debate. John-Arne Røttingen, chair of the WHO Solidarity Trial of COVID-19 treatments, supports the need for technology transfer but preferred voluntary mechanisms. Given the complex challenges of production facilities, infrastructure, and know-how, he argued that IP was “the least of the barriers”. However, Yuanqiong Hu, Senior Legal and Policy Adviser at the Access Campaign of Médecins sans Fontières, disagrees, pointing out that, so far, voluntary transfers had been few and of limited reach.

Overall, the debates once more pointed out the absurdity in a system in which the development of vaccines was partially or entirely financed by taxpayer money yet manufacturing companies retain the profits by selling the products to governments, using tax money a second time, while public paying those taxes is forced to wait longer than necessary because IP rights prevent an expansion of production facilities. Admittedly, Moderna has pledged not to enforce strictly Covid-19 related patents (though not those related to more general production patents, which may, in practice, also be needed), but that is a far cry from a general suspension of IP rights.

The Indian-South African proposal to the WTO was unsuccessful. This is unfortunate since, regardless of the real risks involved in pharmaceutical innovation in general, the central argument is not convincing in this particular case when public funds effectively eliminated the risk. Besides, companies which could demonstrate their ability to supply an effective and safe vaccine would presumably gain sufficient advertising benefits to make the effort worthwhile, even if purely economic motivations are required at a time of pandemic that threatens everybody, including people working in the pharmaceutical industry. Given the difficulties of technology transfer it would take many months before production could begin in other places. But even that would materially shorten the time needed to get all people on Earth vaccinated. In other words, it would save lives. No doubt, voluntary cooperation between companies may be more fruitful than mandatory waivers. In fact, given the complexity of the process and the need for training, it is easy to see how things could go wrong when conducted by people who really don’t want to do this. Examples of such collaborations already exist, typically between a small laboratory or company which succeeded in the scientific development of a vaccine, and a large manufacturer that can upscale production. Cases in point are the cooperation between BioNTech and Pfizer or the between Curevac (whose vaccine is in phase III trials) and Bayer.  No doubt, it would be helpful if more production could be transferred into countries of the global South, such as the Serum Institute in India and Fundação Osvaldo Cruz in Brazil, both producing a vaccine under license both from Oxford-AstraZeneca and from the Russian Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, or the Chinese company Fosun Pharmaceutical group, producing under license from BioNTech. While mandatory IP waivers are off the table at the moment, this does not mean that governments are helpless. Tax reduction, premiums or other benefits could incentivize such collaborations.

The possibility for technical transfers depends, on the one hand, on the complexity of the vaccine, favoring the transfer of the comparatively simpler vaccines by AstraZeneca, Sinopharm and Sputnik V. On the other, it depends on the quality of recipient laboratories. In this perspective, an important requirement is to expand high quality pharmaceutical production sites in many countries. At present, the pharmaceutical industry in the global South is in flux. A lot still needs to happen for a substantial body of high-quality research and production sites, but a lot is already happening.

Even more important in the long run may be a more fundamental question regarding the general suitability of a for profit system for drug and vaccine production. There is a lot to be said for an open-innovation system which avoids expensive duplication of efforts and facilitates the flow of information. However, this means that either private companies need to receive another way of recuperating their costs or, if the costs are generally borne by public institutions, the tax payers must be prepared to finance R&D, including the many unsuccessful attempts which come with pharmaceutical research.

So, what does it all mean?

It is clearly too early for a really substantive assessment of the vaccine component of Covid-19 management. A long list of vaccines is in the pipeline and supposedly some or many will become available during 2021. At the same time, new mutations of the virus are spreading in different parts of the world with unclear relation to existing and future vaccines. Both developments can be game changers in one way or another. All conclusions at this point must remain extremely tentative and temporary. Nevertheless, a few comments are in place.

One observation must be that vaccine production is complicated and difficult to be rushed further. Several stake holders have failed to reach declared goals: Warp Speed, did not produce 300 million doses by January 2021 but 17 only million. China missed its target of vaccinating 50 million people by the Lunar New Year. AstraZeneca/Serum Institute failed to live up to its commitment to supply 400 million doses to COVAX by the end of 2020. However, even taking this into account, the vaccine provisions today are a lot better than expected even quite recently, and, considering the long list of vaccine candidates in promising trials at the moment, the situation is bound to improve further, and probably rather quickly. In that sense, the existing systems, both in the market oriented West and in state-oriented China have performed well.

Production capacities also give rise to optimism. Taking all capabilities into account, according to calculations of Statista, the US is poised to produce by far most vaccines during 2020 and 2021, estimated to produce 4.69 billion doses, followed by India with 3.13 billion and China with 1.9 billion. Making assessment according to companies, CGTN has calculated that Sinovac and Sinopharm could both produce at least 1 billion, AstraZeneca-Oxford 3 billion, BioNTech-Pfizer 1.3 billion, Moderna 0.5 to 1 billion and Sputnik V 1 billion (produced abroad). The Indian Serum Institute must be added to this list.

While these lists provide an indication of the overall potential, they are also questionable since in the globalized world of today, manufacturing is not contained within one company or country. Production inevitably relies on many ingredients and equipment coming from different countries in the world. And, as noted above, there is increasing cooperation between different companies, stretching beyond countries and continents. This economic cooperation has also performed well, despite some instincts of export controls in the US and the EU.

Other than that, the record is more ambivalent, both with regard to production and distribution. Production is going well, but could be better with a more flexible management of IP rights. Distribution is not good but will get better with increasing production, and a weak but promising mechanism for fairer distribution has been put into place. And some dynamics may be contradictory:

There may be a trade-off between national egotism and international cooperation. Nationalism can be counterproductive when it causes countries to monopolize vaccines beyond a reasonable care for their own populations (which, admittedly, may be difficult to define) or raises accusations of preventing enemy countries from reaching import agreements. But it can also have a positive effect when it takes governments into a competition about the fastest or best vaccine and most benevolent foreign policy. This is not to suggest that concerns about people’s welfare never plays a role, but it is difficult to imagine that similar sums of money would have been generated and similar levels of vaccine diplomacy activated without considerations about national (or even personal) prestige. These concerns spurred early efforts and continue to do so. China began selling its vaccines for payment but shifted to donating them after India began doing so. Irked by the obvious successes of the vaccine diplomacy of India, China and Russia (and probably by the scathing criticism of international organizations and NGOs) Western countries began massively increasing their commitment to COVAX.

These connections also shed a different light on the entangled benefits of various efforts. A key player is the Serum Institute of India, currently probably the largest vaccine maker of the world, producing approximately 2.5 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine every day. Arguably, it is this immense production potential which has underwritten Indian largesse and has intensified Chinese generosity. This production has benefited from research at Oxford University (financed by British tax payers and pre-Brexit EU research funding) as well as from a $ 1.2 billion investment from Operation Warp Speed. At present, it is also made the largest commitment to COVAX, followed by BioNTech-Pfizer, a recipient of funding from Operation Warp Speed and the German government. In a globalized world, it is difficult to keep the benefits of vaccine funding local, even – or especially –  if it is tied to national interests.

The problem about that is that the dynamics fostering more cooperation, by investing in a COVAX like mechanism rather than national deals, may be in contradiction to those fostering investment in national R&D. In other words: a system in which all countries contributed all their funds and production potential to a collaborative mechanism such as COVAX would certainly be better for the majority of the world population in low-income countries, and probably be better for people everywhere, because it would obviate the duplication of pre-purchases and the competition even between high-income countries. But would such a system attract the massive amounts of funding required to jump-start the development and mass production of vaccines, including their inevitable unsuccessful attempts?

Similarly, there can be little doubt that more usage of the WHO Technology Access Pool (C-TAP) has the potential to save time, money and effort, and the fact that no company used it means that the existing system has been wasteful in this regard. A better system would incentivize the use of such a platform, or at least avoid de-incentivizing it. Probably, a patent waiver, even if partial or temporary, could go a long way. An ideal system might be one that manages to transfer, as far as possible, personal and national prestige to contribution to collaborative schemes, and otherwise to handle trade-offs between the two as best as possible. An example is the way the ACT-Accelerator visualizes national contributions in the form of rankings and funding tracker. Potentially, more effort to communicate the benefits of such a mechanism to everybody and to strengthen the competitive element of such contributions might be helpful.

Even more important, it seems essential to invest in high-quality pharmaceutical manufacturers in many parts of the world. If Oxford-AstraZeneca can have such important cooperation with the Serum Institute of India, there is no reason why similar collaborations could not exist elsewhere, with far-reaching effects.

Another trade-off may be between speed and safety. Everywhere, the tests necessary for full authorization cost time. Therefore, countries such as the UK and Israel, which began mass vaccination after emergency authorization, were quicker than those, such as the EU, that waited for full authorization. Similarly, vaccine exports and donations from China and Russia have been quick because they did not wait for full WHO approval. The Indian Serum Institute, producing under licence from Oxford-AstraZeneca, has been a major contributor to COVAX, while China and Russia have shown little interest in donating vaccines to COVAX instead of directly to other countries. But even in the case when China did make an offer, the required tests have held up the donation. The verdict on this tradeoff will still need some time. So far, all vaccines appear to perform well in the field with no apparent safety issues. Maybe in some years, there will be reason to conclude that at the time of pandemic, speed is more important than thorough tests, and holding up deliveries because of testing may raise uncomfortable ethical question. However, easing testing on drugs given to billions of people inevitably raises similarly uncomfortable ethical questions.

Finally, an important question is what a fair global distribution of vaccines would look like. All countries have made plans the determine the sequence of vaccinations. Criteria differ, usually including a mixture of vulnerability (i.e., age and pre-existing diseases), importance in fighting the pandemic (i.e., essential health workers), and importance for the stability of societal system (workers considered essential such as policemen or teachers). Globally, other criteria might play a role, for instance infection risk (workers in job that require a lot of mobility such as pilots or UN peace forces). A broad debate about these criteria and their applicability in different places seems essential, not only for the present pandemic but also in preparation for inevitably future pandemics and for the underlying bigger question of global drug production beyond acute epidemics. These debates should include an honest discussion about financial rights and responsibilities with regard to governments, companies and tax paying and non-tax paying citizens. Naming and shaming may be a useful toll to get such discussions going. But the underlying problems are real and deserve serious considerations. As a start, it would be good for an international and inter-disciplinary commission to study these questions at the end of the present pandemic.

News Flash 419: Weekly Snapshot of Public Health Challenges

News Flash Links, as part of the research project PEAH (Policies for Equitable Access to Health), aim to focus on the latest challenges by trade and governments rules to equitable access to health in resource-limited settings

News Flash 419

Weekly Snapshot of Public Health Challenges


Kampala Initiative Webinar on 25 February 2021: Public Private Paratnerships (PPPs) and commercialisation in healthcare: donors, profit and people 


Making the UN Tax Committee More Effective for Developing Countries 

In Brief: Predicted doubling of malaria deaths in Africa averted 

Ebola outbreak declared in Guinea  

Ebola: DR Congo launches Butembo vaccination campaign 

Ending the neglect – integrating approaches to disease elimination 

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Weekly Update  

Coronavirus: preparing Europe for the increased threat of variants  

UN Chief Calls on Rich Nations to Implement Global Vaccine Task Force 

EMA receives application for conditional marketing authorisation of COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen  

Coronavirus: Commission approves second contract with Moderna to ensure up to additional 300 million doses 

Full assessment report for COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca 

Covid-19 pandemic: China ‘refused to give data’ to WHO team 

15 February 2021: Call from the Global South to Rich Countries: Don’t block the waiver proposal to facilitate effective prevention, containment, and treatment of COVID-19   

CONCORD: Open letter to President Ursula von der Leyen: Call for a far more equitable vaccine approach 

EU’s anti-fraud agency warns against fake COVID vaccines 

Nessun profitto sulla Pandemia 

Two AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Manufacturers Get WHO Emergency Use Listing, Opening Door to COVAX Distribution 

WHO, UNICEF Say 130 Countries Yet to Administer Any COVID-19 Vaccine 

EMA starts rolling review of CureVac’s COVID-19 vaccine (CVnCoV) 

Escaping Catch-22 — Overcoming Covid Vaccine Hesitancy 

WHO launches new tools to help countries build effective childhood cancer programmes 

Epilepsy – Are we talking enough about it? 

400,000 children in Yemen at risk of dying from hunger, UN warns  

Study of the Covid-19 and food and beverage industry response in India, Mexico and Nigeria 

US puts climate migrant protections on the table  

Three Ways to Ensure COP-26 Delivers for Poor People  

Climate Change & Policy Making in Nepal 

The climate and trade nexus in Africa 




News Flash 418: Weekly Snapshot of Public Health Challenges

News Flash Links, as part of the research project PEAH (Policies for Equitable Access to Health), aim to focus on the latest challenges by trade and governments rules to equitable access to health in resource-limited settings

News Flash 418

Weekly Snapshot of Public Health Challenges


WHO public health round-up 

U.S. backs Okonjo-Iweala, first woman and African, to head WTO 

Online Meeting 9th March 2021: The Colombia-Wisconsin One Health Effort: Innovation and the Study of Emerging Diseases 

The new WHO Foundation — global health deserves better 

The Marmot Review 10 Years On: New EPHA study on its lessons for the European Union 

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Weekly Update 

Latest Covid-19 Statistics from African Countries 

WHO Experts Unable to Find ‘Missing Link’ in SARS-CoV2 Virus Transmission in China 

LIVE: WHO media briefing from Wuhan on COVID-19 mission – 9 February 2021 

Debunking COVID-19 myths and remedies 

Speech by President von der Leyen at the European Parliament Plenary on the state of play of the EU’s COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy 

COVID-19 vaccines: acting on the evidence 

WHO calls on Europe, pharma to ‘join up and speed up’ coronavirus jabs 

National vaccine equity is a cornerstone of the success of the Europe’s fight against COVID-19 

How can we ensure equal access to COVID-19 vaccines for all in the context of growing health inequities? 

Rich countries block waiver on COVID-19 vaccine IP  

Intellectual Property Cause of Death, Genocide 

Covid-19 response: A story of moral failure 

Okonjo-Iweala: Access To COVID-19 Vaccines ‘Not Just Moral Imperative – It Is A Strategic And Economic One’  

How Will COVID-19 Impact Our Progress Towards Universal Health Coverage?  

 Clarification on Sputnik V vaccine in the EU approval process 

In Brief: AstraZeneca vaccine’s minimal efficacy against COVID-19 variant in South Africa  

EMA preparing guidance to tackle COVID-19 variants 

Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine 

Public Health Researchers Call for New Measures to Protect Pharmaceutical Supply Chain 

A new TB preventive therapy aims to increase patient compliance 

Innovation to reach the destination: World NTD Day 2021 

Vaccinating children in high-endemic rabies regions: what are we waiting for? 

The long road to transformation: Addressing social determinants to achieve healthy communities 

Floods, fighting, famine: Inside South Sudan’s triple crisis 









News Flash 417: Weekly Snapshot of Public Health Challenges

News Flash Links, as part of the research project PEAH (Policies for Equitable Access to Health), aim to focus on the latest challenges by trade and governments rules to equitable access to health in resource-limited settings

News Flash 417

Weekly Snapshot of Public Health Challenges



Human Rights Reader 562  

More Funds Are Required To Promote Migrants’ Health by Olga Shelevakho 


COVID-19—break the cycle of inequality 

Road to Hell Paved with Good Intentions 

MSF to wealthy countries: Don’t block and ruin the potential of a landmark waiver on monopolies during the pandemic 

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Weekly Update 

One Year Later: COVID-19 Versus WHO And The World – Successes, Failures & Hopes  

Africa Aware: The Economic Burden of COVID-19  

South Africa’s Second COVID Wave Passes Despite Variant – AstraZeneca Vaccines For Health Workers’ Arrive But At Higher Price Than EU Paid  

Audio Interview: A Covid-19 Conversation with Anthony Fauci  

Missing clinical trial data: the evidence gap in primary data for potential COVID-19 drugs 

COVAX publishes first interim distribution forecast 

Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine candidate appears safe and effective   

First COVID-19 vaccine safety update published 

Novartis agrees to help Pfizer-BioNTech produce Covid-19 vaccine 

Novavax’s COVID Vaccine Shows High Efficacy In Trials; J&J One-Dose Shot Less So – As Europe Feuds With AstraZeneca 

EMA starts rolling review of Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) 

MSF response t o release of Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine data 

European Commission authorises third safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19 

Commission puts in place transparency and authorisation mechanism for exports of COVID-19 vaccines 

EMA starts rolling review of REGN-COV2 antibody combination (casirivimab / imdevimab) 

Updating WHO’s global strategy for malaria 

THE INNOVATION NEGLECTED PATIENTS DESERVE World Neglected Tropical Diseases Day 30 January 2021 

WASH inclusion in new NTD roadmap signals ‘a paradigm shift’ 

Economics’ failure over destruction of nature presents ‘extreme risks’ 

Intergovernmental engagement on health impacts of climate change 

The seeding of climate smart health care 

Unhealthy geopolitics: can the response to COVID-19 reform climate change policy? 

‘Win-win or lose-lose’: EU scientists highlight two-faced bioenergy policies 









More Funds Are Required To Promote Migrants’ Health

PEAH is pleased to republish an article by AFEW partner organization. AFEW is dedicated to improving the health of key populations in society. With a focus on Eastern Europe and Central Asia, AFEW strives to promote health and increase access to prevention, treatment and care for major public health concerns such as HIV, TB, viral hepatitis, and sexual and reproductive health 

First published December 18, 2020 

By Olga Shelevakho 

AFEW International

More Funds Are Required To Promote Migrants’ Health


In December 2019, IOM (International Organization for Migration) Tajikistan together with AFEW International and AFEW Kyrgyzstan launched the project “Improving migrants’ access to HIV services in Tajikistan”. Aim of this project is to raise awareness among outgoing migrants on safe migration and to promote health seeking behaviour relating Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV through peer networks.

Rukhshona Kurbonova, National Professional Officer, Sub-Regional Coordinator on Migration Health for Central Asian countries, talked to AFEW International about the outcome of the project, the challenges that the project faced during its 1-year implementation, and the important role of community representatives in the process.

Rukhshona, 2020 was not the easiest year, because of the Covid-19 pandemic. How has this affected the project “Improving migrants’ access to HIV services in Tajikistan”?

Indeed, 2020 became quite a difficult year for the world, also for us. We have managed to implement key activities, and tried our best to fully roll out the project, but have not had the reach that we hoped for, due to COVID-19. The main activity of the project was outreach work among outgoing migrants to raise awareness on prevention STIs and HIV and promoting health seeking behaviour. As a result of the project, the number of the migrants covered by HIV testing in Kulob increased 4 times. Although we referred less migrants for HIV testing than was planned, the results of the project demonstrated a positive impact on health seeking behaviour. The COVID19 situation hindered reaching the initial target of 1000. We have adapted to this situation by setting up a testing program at the Kulob AIDS Control Center, which will continue to provide free testing among migrants.

Talking more about COVID19, I would like to say that the pandemic also drew our attention to the needs of the migrants’ families. Many migrants abroad lost their jobs and could not send money to their families at home. This led to some precarious situation with the families left behind. IOM and AFEW responded to this by allocating funds for the support packages. As a result, 50 vulnerable migrants’ households received food packages and hygiene kits, including protective materials for COVID-19.

Did IOM Tajikistan or partner organizations face any other challenges?

One of the challenges was a process of implementing a new approach where we tried to identify high-risk behaviour among migrants during outreach work. This included asking them questions on drug use and sexual practice. This was a very sensitive issue, and particularly the questions about men having sex with men were met with a very negative response. It was very difficult to discuss these topics.

When we were organising safe migration training among migrants who use drugs, it became clear that active drug users need psychosocial support, rather than information on migration legislation. It means that safe migration training sessions need to be organized among people who use drugs in remission phase and in case they intend to go abroad for work.

What is the main outcome of the project, from your point of view?

The main outcome of the project is that we piloted successfully our new approach on reaching key population among migrants and migrants with risk behaviour. Although we could not implement all activities in the way we would have wanted, it is clear that the suggested approach needs to be extended and applied in other projects.

Within the project, the IOM conducted operational research. What was the goal of this research and do you plan to use its results in the future?

The goal of the operational research was to measure the effectiveness and impact of the suggested project activities on the knowledge, attitude and practice relating STIs and HIV of migrants, including key populations. Due to COVID19, we could not conduct all sessions that were foreseen, but nonetheless we collected valuable data about attitude and behaviour among migrants through base line survey and focus group discussions. This information gave us more understanding of the vulnerability among migrants, including a lack of knowledge and healthy practices among women in comparison with men and high stigma and discrimination toward men who have sex with men. Based on the received data, we plan to extend our research and develop scientific article next year.

Did you involve community representatives into the project?

Community representatives played a key role in the project implementation. The outreach work was led by NGO “Nakukor”, who involved leaders of key population groups, including people living with HIV. A “peer to peer” approach was used, and community leaders and local migration and health authorities also helped in identifying the vulnerable migrants’ families and distributing food and hygiene packages.

In the end of November the online regional dialogue “Migrants’ Access To Essential HIV Services: Progress And Opportunities Amid COVID-19” was organized. What are the main insights of the event?

The event was organized jointly with WHO office in Europe and WHO Tajikistan. WHO colleagues helped us to bring Russian health authorities- representatives of Rospotrebnadzor – into this dialogue. As a result, the event gathered key stakeholders from the country of destination and countries of origin of migrants. Participation of the HIV service organizations extended the dialogue and gave opportunity to ask questions directly to each other. NGOs raised the issue of the lack of access of migrants with HIV to ART: Russian legislation prohibits residency of foreigners with HIV, and this means that ART is not available for migrants with HIV. The Healthcare Committee of the CIS is now developing a model HIV legislation which might change the situation in the future. The event demonstrated that regional meetings need to be organized on a regular basis to share updates and developments on migration and HIV.

Which results are you personally proud of?

Despite the limitations because of COVID19, the IOM, with AFEW and national partners, was able to conduct a number of activities reaching key populations among migrants, providing free HIV tests, collect data, organize a regional on-line event, develop two new brochures: on safe migration, the first brochure in Tajikistan that targets migrants who use drugs, and a brochure on prevention of sexually transmitted infection and HIV among migrants. The achievements and lessons learnt gave us the basis for the developing other new projects that will target key population among migrants.

Do you see any challenges in the future for your projects and your help to migrants?

Unfortunately, there is lack of recognition of the contributions that migrants make both to the economics of the countries of origin and destination. It also needs to be recognised that the health of migrants is a key point for their performance. More funds are required to promote migrants’ health and advocate migrants’ rights to health. Inclusive policies, as part of the framework of universal access to health, are of great importance. More efforts need to be applied to extend cross-border cooperation between countries of origin, transit and destination.

In some countries of the EECA region, HIV and TB national programmes heavily depend on the support of international donors. AFEW International is one of the few organizations that specifically target migrants in their programmes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Labour migration is a long-term trend in the EECA region that significantly contributes to economics of the countries. In this regard, health of migrants is a fundamental condition for productive work and the social and economic development of the countries of origin and destination. Joint efforts and international support are highly required to address migrants’ needs in health.