This is a terrible piece of writing. It claims here that Gates is evil since he recommended Oxford partner up with AstraZeneca. There is no analysis whatsoever about that why that might have been a good idea. Here's one, the companies with the production capacity might not want to produce something they don't own... (actually the article says as much if you scroll all the way to the bottom)<p>Also just assuming that someone who donates billions is evil without any research whatsoever is just lazy clickbait journalism.<p>Next it talks about how businesses profit from this. While true it's also totally misses the point. The economist wrote an article on how the world is vastly underspending on solving this problem.<p>Another one: "this should have expected better negotiation on the part of the U.S. government". If I'm negotiating with a freelance developer and need help tomorrow, do you think it makes sense to haggle on price? I definitely wouldn't.
People in this thread are denouncing the involvement of a commercial company as "evil", all the while forgetting that handling the logistics and assembly-line required for mass producing hundreds of millions of doses made of very specific biological compounds is not something a university is equipped to do.
I almost can't believe this is true. What possible reason could the Foundation urge such a destructive course of action on something that is so vital for humanity.
As much as I’m sure Gates is a cutthroat bastard, I’m sure this was about distribution. Without IP exclusivity there’s no incentive for pharma distribution.
It is my belief that society should not be dependent on the goodwill of free entities, and free entities should not be pressured to do "good" even when it goes against their interests.
I do not hold it against them that they decided to profit out of their opportunity. Why shouldn't they?
The article has one throw away line supporting the headline and then a lot of fluff. The WSJ journal article has a lot more background on the various parties behind this and the financial incentives.<p>www.wsj.com/amp/articles/oxford-developed-covid-vaccine-then-scholars-clashed-over-money-11603300412<p>>One longtime Oxford donor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was assisting with Covid-19 efforts globally. In March, Prof. Bell says Trevor Mundel, head of the foundation’s global-health program, told him, “You guys need a partner.”<p>>Prof. Bell says he told Profs. Gilbert and Hill that they had a conflict of interest in any talks between Oxford and potential partners, because of their ownership stake in Vaccitech.<p>> Prof. Bell also didn’t want Vaccitech at the negotiating table, and considered it inconceivable that the company, with just a few dozen staff, could help coordinate a global vaccine rollout.<p>> After 10 days of talks, AstraZeneca agreed to commit to global distribution that wouldn’t favor any one country or region. It also agreed to provide the vaccine at cost during the pandemic, or at least until next summer, pending terms they were still hashing out. U.K. government officials worked on a deal to pay up-front for doses.<p>> Details of Oxford’s agreement with AstraZeneca are private. But a company spokesman said it guarantees to sell at no profit the roughly 3 billion doses for which it already has agreements in place.<p>><i>The big drugmaker offered a sweetener: It said that as long as Vaccitech signed over its Covid-19 vaccine rights to Oxford to enable an exclusive license, AstraZeneca in turn promised to explore ways to collaborate with the small biotech firm, according to an agreement signed by Dr. Pangalos. The nonbinding agreement cited “AstraZeneca’s potential participation in Vaccitech’s proposed Series B financing.”</i><p>> “The university didn’t enter this discussion with the idea of making a ton of money,” Prof. Bell says. But it didn’t want to be naïve, either: “Let’s say [the vaccine] becomes a seasonal coronavirus vaccine, and it sells a billion dollars a year. For us to be sitting there and making no money looks pretty dumb.”
Note that in the article prices for $37 a dose are given for the other vaccines, but no price for the Oxford vaccine is provided - I believe that it's $4 a dose. Why the journalist couldn't provide that information I don't know.
It's important to note that the Oxford/AZ vaccine is 5-10 times cheaper than all other vaccines which is overlooked here[0].<p>This is clearly not some quick profit grab, and there are likely good reasons behind it, some of which are hinted at.<p>0. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/belgian-minister-accidentally-tweets-eus-covid-vaccine-price-list" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/belgian-minist...</a>
I don't understand why is this bad? AZ is selling vaccines at cost, 20 times cheaper than moderna (which this article for some reason keeps mentioning) and they licensed (or just gave away?) it to generic manufacturers in India and elsewhere to produce cheaply (which the article does not mention?)
Remember this is the same pharma industry that:<p>- Squashed support for COVID-19 human challenge trials[0], claiming it was “too risky” while standing to profit enormously from their own brand-new MRNA vaccines<p>- Did less than nothing to promote general immune health, spread awareness of ubiquitous seasonal Vitamin D deficiency at high latitudes, etc<p>- Just got a back-scratch from the new administration, which canceled an order to increase price transparency for insulin and EpiPens<p>The system is completely broken, from top to bottom.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-coronavirus-speedy-covid-19-vaccine/" rel="nofollow">https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-co...</a>
This is the key quote i can find in the article. Correct me if I missed something but I can't find evidence in this article that the Gates foundation pushed for exclusivity, but rather they pushed for getting the vaccine actually distributed. And all the comments about Gates' views on IP are third party. (Not that I don't believe them what with his past at MS but it doesn't make me think he pushed for exclusivity in any way)<p>> Oxford backed off from its open-license pledge after the Gates Foundation urged it to find a big-company partner to get its vaccine to market.<p>> “We went to Oxford and said, Hey, you’re doing brilliant work,” Bill Gates told reporters on June 3, a transcript shows. “But … you really need to team up.” The comments were first reported by Bloomberg.<p>AstraZeneca may not have been a good choice either in the end. They're falling way behind their targets and are causing vaccine shortages right now.<p><a href="https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/150975/belgium-to-receive-less-than-half-of-expected-astrazeneca-vaccines/" rel="nofollow">https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/150975/b...</a>
It does not compute. "I (the govt) will give you (the pharma) billions for free if you work on a vaccine. If you fail, no worries. If you're successful, you can sell it however you want."<p>It's like the opposite of VC.<p>Can anyone explain such logic and why it's still in place?
Note that the Astrazeneca share price is about the same now as it was before the pandemic. So if there is some fortune to be made out of the vaccine, it seems the stock market has not yet noticed.
I find it difficult to complain about “the way things are” when this system has allowed us to develop and manufacture multiple effective vaccines in record time. Where is the problem?<p>Without government funding to spur research quickly then fewer companies would risk it and those that did find an effective vaccine would sell them for whatever the market would pay - which is a lot more than what they are going for now. By funding the research the governments at least have a claim of hoarding the vaccine rather than letting market participants bid on it. And this would mean millions of not-rich people wouldn’t get it for a long time. At least now it’s based on need and not ability to pay to protect your life and is actually available.