@notevenat20
It's pretty clear why money people are criticising the not-for-profit vaccine.
It’s not not-for-profit. It is sold at “cost” for as little as seven months. Oxford/AZ get to define when they start charging and my understanding is that even the “at cost” bit is opaque and allows them to make some profit.
See:
AstraZeneca vaccine document shows limit of no-profit pledge. Company has right under contract to declare pandemic over by July 2021
Public health experts say many of the vaccine deals, including those involving AstraZeneca, are shrouded in secrecy, offering little room for scrutiny.
Manuel Martin, medical innovation and access policy adviser at Médecins Sans Frontières, said the terms of the Fiocruz MoU gave AstraZeneca “an unacceptable level of control over a vaccine developed through public funds”. “Relying on voluntary measures by pharmaceutical corporations to ensure access is a mistake with fatal consequences,” he said.
AstraZeneca has received large amounts of public money to develop its vaccine and secure forward orders, including at least $1bn from the US.
www.ft.com/content/c474f9e1-8807-4e57-9c79-6f4af145b686
And from Sky:
Should the disease recede and the vaccine become an annual defence against COVID-19 sold at a profit, Professor Gilbert, her close colleagues, the university, and a range of private and corporate investors - including Google's parent company Alphabet - all stand to benefit.