Vaccine patent waiver could be the way out

[Tealightsandd]

www.france24.com/en/europe/20210416-could-waived-covid-19-patents-save-the-world

I wondered about this a while back.

The biggest issue with vaccines is supply. Raw material shortage is another problem but increasing manufacturing capacity including for poorer countries could really help.

The WHO wanted a patent waiver. The drugs companies won't like it but the world can't afford for this to continue for another few years.

Temporary waiver as a way out, or too problematic?

I don't understand what this means, could someone explain it in simple terms?

@Waxonwaxoff0 it means that only the pharmaceutical company who developed the vaccine can manufacture it. They have a patent in order to protect their investment as otherwise they’d spend millions researching and developing and not recoup that cost if any Tom Dick or Harry had the recipe if you like.

So if they waived their patents local pharmaceutical companies anywhere in the world could manufacture the vaccine locally for their local market. So it would be like saying, here’s the recipe, you can make it.

I see, thanks. So why would that be problematic, is it a money making thing?

I don't think the pharmaceutical companies should be forced to waive patents. We aren't out of this mess yet and the new variants may mean there needs to be a booster vaccine (maybe lots of boosters for years to come). If you force pharmaceutical companies to waive the patent that is a major disincentive to invest in R&D to develop booster vaccines. Asking them to volunteer to reduce their profits, especially for sales to third world countries, might be more fruitful.

It is initially yes.

Imagine being Heinz and taking months and millions of pounds developing baked beans only for supermarkets to come along and make something almost as good but not quite and sell it for half the price.

It's the same for the vaccine developers/manufacturers. They want to be the only ones to make and sell their product because it's not like beans where you can go, we'll add a bit of tomato and a bit of sugar and say yeah, that tastes pretty good but not exactly the same.

With vaccines the developer has to give out the exact recipe or it won't work as it should and they want to sell enough to recoup the money they've spent on development.

Even the colonel won't give out details of those 11 herbs and spices

It that IS happening. Australia’s CSL are making the AZ vaccine. I’m not sure of the exact deal, but I’m told that it’s similar to AZ selling CSL the recipe.

www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-02-12/covid-19-vaccine-oxford-astrazeneca-adenovirus-csl-manufacturing/13140104

I’m just up and read this as patient waver. I was very confused.

It's a terrible idea. The main reasons why are:

1. Making vaccines isn't like mixing paint where you just get the quantity and stir, making vaccines is a complex process that can and does easily go wrong. Building up new facilities has been done by each company working closely in the ground with the teams to teach them what to do and quality check.
2. Vaccine manufacturers are already working with additional plants to increase supply; issues are raw material availability and difficulty in ramping up new facilities, not with a desire to hide capabilities
3. Poor quality vaccines that nobody can trust will create more vaccine hesitancy, and make any ability to judge risk based on vaccine status impossible
4. Poor quality vaccines that continue to spread variants will create more mutation risk
5. Owners of mRNA and adenovirus technologies are entitled and able to use them for many other things in future, these are expensive investments, if they are stolen now then who do we expect to help in the next pandemic by giving up work in progress on other technology? We already have the only non-profit regretting that choice, so we know it'll be more expensive next time, let's not make it impossible for any pharmaceutical company to help.

What would be more useful globally is for pharmaceutical companies to be given more help in expanding supply of raw materials such as the sterile containers used by all of them.

It's not a patent waiver that is needed, it's agreements that the drugs will be supplied on a no-profit basis.

That has happened when backers (including our government) put enough up front for the development costs to be covered.

But because Bill Gates did the same, it fuels conspiracy theories, though everyone seems to like Dolly Parton's imput

That ship has sailed now, but perhaps there should be a side-shoot of COVAX which doesn't just buy and distribute to poorer countries, but also gets the rich to pay for more manufacturing capacity within existing patents/licensing.

That does require rich countries to pay to help end the pandemic. But 'those with broadest shoulders bearing the biggest load' was quite a popular slogan for taking from the rich to ease the plight of the poor

I heard a radio programme on this and I understand the issue is the quality of the vaccine which might be produced. You really don't want some random bloke with a factory in Argentina or whenever having a bash at making a vaccine. Its incredibly technical and needs proper labs which in reality only Pfizer, AZ etc. have.

Everything MRex said.

Plus, as I understand it, the limit on production right now is sites with the appropriate expertise, plus essential equipment like sterile baggies and tubing. Sharing the patent doesn't address those issues, and risks poorly made vaccine because that expertise isn't available to oversee the process.

Dangerous in two ways you disincentivise company's making medicines for pandemics in the future, and you end up with possibly dodgy vaccines without the quality checks being made.

This is a terrible idea, for all the reasons already stated on this thread.

I want there to be thriving, well resourced biotech companies ready to spring into action next time a pandemic is threatening to overwhelm us. Kicking the stool out from under the companies ho have been successful this time around will not help that.

I would have said it was a good idea until I saw how AZ have been punished for waiving their profits . That was 100% because the other pharmaceutical companies are unhappy that AZ might be used in preference to their vaccine. I think that behind the scenes there has been attempts to undermine AZ by the other vaccine developers . That has combined with some communications mistakes made by Az and the blood clot non "side effect" which must have been like a gift for them. The problem is the fallout is also beginning to affect the J&J vaccine

J&J have had very little bad publicity though a couple of places have suspended / banned it's use. I think it is very unlikely that theirs would have been banned from use by anyone if the appallingly doom mongering ( and I loathe that term usually) communications around AZ had not got out of hand.

So no I don't think we should force pharmaceutical companies to give up their patents because they will fight very hard to keep their profits and the tactics that they use to do that could further undermine efforts to get everyone vaccinated in ways that cant easily be predicted.

I cant believe the WHO even suggested or thought about it, let alone make that absolutely stupid thought public.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of patents or business, would not entertain such an idea.

I'm not sure this would even work that well. Making a vaccine like these is extremely technical and specialised work and there are not that many facilities able to do it. It takes a long time and a lot of money to set them up, and you need at least some specialised staff who know what they're doing. It's not like you can just release the patent and anyone with a biscuit factory can have a go. Added to that, a lot of the IP surrounding the vaccines will actually be in the manufacturing process. This will be largely the same for any different e.g. adenoviral vector that company might want to make for any purpose. They would not just be giving away IP for the covid vaccine, but many future therapies.

The reality is Pfizer could sell every dose they produce ten times over. They are already hugely incentivised to make as much as they can.

So, if you want to increase production, help Pfizer (and all the others) open new sites. That's likely to be cheaper and safer than taking the patent and open sourcing it.

I guess that's a pretty comprehensive no to Tedros in this thread then!

Lots seem to want it though:

80 developing countries, along with rights groups such as Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and Amnesty International, as well as broader activist movements like the People’s Vaccine Alliance, which is calling for free vaccines for all.

Are they right that this is slightly different?

Covid-19 vaccine developers have received around $10 billion in taxpayer and non-profit funding, meaning the vaccines in many ways already belong to the people.

But I can see the issues. I hope we see what the concluding paragraph calls for asap:

What we really want is for a number of regional hubs to be set up around the world, in Africa, Latin America and Oceania, and get those producing” to up the global supply needed.

@Tealightsandd - they may all be asking for slightly different things. Free vaccines for all and regional hubs are not the same as taking away a patent then having a go at making it. (Which would be a bit like giving a 3 year old flour, yeast, oil and water hoping for a nice loaf of bread.)

What's holding up regional hubs? Money? Politics? Raw material shortage? Something else?

Raw materials and skilled resource. Facilities need to be fully kitted out with kit and resources, unfortunately that kit and train takes time; in Europe they've tried using existing facilities but started only recently so the skill to do high volume is still growing. There are also specific raw material shortages; last summer some countries were stocking up syringes and needles (and it was already clear they weren't scaling enough), but the sterile plastic containers to create vaccines seem to have been missed in the global scale-up for example.

@bumblingbovine49

I would have said it was a good idea until I saw how AZ have been punished for waiving their profits . That was 100% because the other pharmaceutical companies are unhappy that AZ might be used in preference to their vaccine. I think that behind the scenes there has been attempts to undermine AZ by the other vaccine developers . That has combined with some communications mistakes made by Az and the blood clot non "side effect" which must have been like a gift for them. The problem is the fallout is also beginning to affect the J&J vaccine

J&J have had very little bad publicity though a couple of places have suspended / banned it's use. I think it is very unlikely that theirs would have been banned from use by anyone if the appallingly doom mongering ( and I loathe that term usually) communications around AZ had not got out of hand.

So no I don't think we should force pharmaceutical companies to give up their patents because they will fight very hard to keep their profits and the tactics that they use to do that could further undermine efforts to get everyone vaccinated in ways that cant easily be predicted.

But AZ didn’t develop the vaccine did they. Oxford had done a lot of the research and weren’t initially going to use just one manufacturer but lots of different ones. They were advised not to do this and went with AZ, but not before signing a couple of early agreement with places like the serum institute.

IIRC the patent for mRNA vaccines is held by the us government because they’d spent decades researching it. I think the question got asked about where that left the drug companies but nobody really wanted to answer it.

If be worried about quality standards tbh

Should read: I'd be worried about quality standards

Just look at the problems at existing sites such as the Halix plant for AZ - they have had continuing issues and I believe experts were sent over (from the UK?) to try to sort out the process. Clearly the number of people who actually know about this sort of stuff must be relatively small, so I can’t see that just handing over the patents is anything but a recipe for disaster.