News & Media

Oxfam disappointed New Zealand government will not back a People’s Vaccine

December 11, 2020

Following reports that New Zealand won’t be backing the call to waive patents and facilitate a free and fairly distributed vaccine to help prevent the spread of coronavirus around the world, Oxfam New Zealand’s Communications and Advocacy Director Dr Joanna Spratt said:

“It is disappointing for the New Zealand government not to support a decision that could help to prevent billions of people missing out on a life-saving vaccine, as poorer countries do not have the same leverage as richer nations to protect their populations while those wealthy countries are hoarding more than they need.

“Saying New Zealand will support the COVAX facility instead is no perfect solution to the complex challenge of delivering a safe vaccine to everyone in the world. Meeting this task is essential to ending the pandemic, as it’s not over until it’s over for everyone.

“But this will not happen while pharmaceutical companies are allowed to withhold vital science and intellectual property, or while rich nations continue to use their purchasing power to side-step COVAX and buy up the vast majority of the world’s currently limited vaccine supply for years to come.

“Earlier this year, Jacinda Ardern signed her name to an open letter calling for a guarantee of equal global access to a Covid-19 vaccine. In the letter, it states that where you live should not determine whether you live. It also states that ‘…This cannot be a race with one winner. When one or more vaccines are successful, it must be a win for all of us.’

“We wholeheartedly agree with the prime minister on these points. Access to a coronavirus vaccine should not be dependent on where you are born or how much money your country has. Now more than ever, we need global cooperation to halt the spread of this virus and stop the spread of the pandemic in its tracks.

“Waiving patents is one way to advance more equitable distribution and supply of a vaccine. But if the government feels unable to support this, there is still plenty more they can do to advance a free vaccine for everyone. It is not clear how much New Zealand has contributed to the COVAX Advanced Market Commitment mechanism, so publishing our contribution would be a good first step so New Zealanders can see how strong our commitment is.

“The government could also join the ‘Solidarity call to action to realise equitable global access to COVID-19 health technologies through pooling of knowledge, intellectual property and data’, already signed onto by 40 other WHO member states and other supporting organisations and people.

“Finally, New Zealand could use its purchasing power to persuade pharmaceutical corporations to voluntarily share their coronavirus intellectual property and technology.

“There simply comes a time when humanity’s common good must take precedence over private profit. This is that time. The only way we can truly put an end to the coronavirus pandemic is by providing a free vaccine to everyone in the world who needs one.”

-ends-

For more information, please contact:
Kelsey-Rae Taylor on Kelsey-Rae.Taylor@oxfam.org.nz or +6421 298 5894.

Kiwis’ carbon footprint 13 times that of poorest half of world’s population

December 11, 2020

New Zealand’s efforts to tackle climate change are under fresh scrutiny as global leaders meet this weekend to announce ambitious plans to meet the challenges of the climate crisis.

An exclusive group of countries have been accepted to speak at the Climate Ambition Summit, hosted by France, the UK and the UN, via a virtual meeting on Saturday. However, New Zealand has confirmed it will not be attending as it has no substantial commitment to announce.

In the wake of the declaration of a climate emergency last week, campaigning organisations like Oxfam have been hopeful the government would move faster on new policy measures to reduce emissions, as well as to support countries most impacted by climate change with vital funding so they can cope and adapt.

Meanwhile, a new analysis from Oxfam published today reveals New Zealand’s carbon emissions are disproportionately adding to the climate crisis when compared to the emissions of the majority of the world’s population.

It shows many communities experiencing the consequences of climate change first and worst are far less responsible for emissions than the average New Zealander. It also highlights that current emissions levels are not consistent with our commitment to limit global heating to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius for humanity’s best chance of survival:

New Zealanders’ carbon footprint is more than 13 times that of the global poorest 50% (9.3 vs 0.69 tCO2/year).
The consumption of New Zealanders produces 4 times as much carbon emissions as the consumption of citizens of the Pacific Islands (8.6 vs 2.2 tCO2/year), where climate breakdown is being seen in rising sea levels, ferocious cyclones and disrupted weather patterns.
The per capita footprint of New Zealanders is over 4 times the 1.5C-consistent target for 2030 (9.3 tonnes vs 2.1 tonnes of CO2). This means that the average footprint will need to be reduced by at least 77% in less than a decade if we are to address the climate crisis.

Oxfam has been calling on the government to greatly enhance its 2030 emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement, and to double New Zealand’s climate finance contributions to fund mitigation and adaptation efforts in poorer countries.

A Pacific leaders’ meeting this evening, which New Zealand is expected to attend, has also been convened, where the leaders of the climate-vulnerable islands will demand urgent worldwide action.

Oxfam New Zealand’s Campaigns Lead Alex Johnston said: “Our outsized contribution to climate change is unacceptable, and the government has to be doing everything it can to get emissions down, and increase climate finance for those on the frontlines of climate change.

“If we want to go into regional and global forums such as the ones in coming days with our head held high, we have a long way to go. This government has the right intention to take action, but isn’t going far enough. To start with, we should dramatically upscale our 2030 emissions reduction target, and double our climate finance contributions within a rising aid budget.

“This builds on the urgency for what we have to do not just to be consistent with 1.5 degrees, but to go further than that to address our outsized contribution to the problem. It is a matter of global equity,” said Johnston.

Oxfam in the Pacific Regional Director, Raijeli Nicole said: “We know that climate change is not an issue we can afford to drag our feet on. New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, answered the Pacific region’s global call to action when she recently declared a climate emergency.

“We hope the New Zealand Government can back its commitment with inclusive and just policy changes that reflect the seriousness of the issue and their obligations under the Paris Agreement. The Climate Ambition Summit this Saturday provides the perfect platform for New Zealand and the international community to significantly step-up its efforts on climate change for the future of our region and of humanity.”

Notes to editors:

Two recent Oxfam reports ‘A Fair 2030 Target for Aotearoa’ and ‘Standing With The Frontlines’ showed how far away New Zealand’s current targets are from doing its fair share for keeping to 1.5 degrees; and what New Zealand ought to be providing in climate finance to support developing countries to adapt to the impacts they are facing and mitigate their emissions.
Data for the carbon footprint of New Zealanders is taken from Stats NZ, who use OECD estimates.
Data for the carbon footprint for the poorest 50% of the global population and for consistency with 1.5 degrees was taken from ‘The Carbon Inequality Era’, a September 2020 report by Oxfam International and the Stockholm Environment Institute, which assesses the consumption emissions of different income groups between 1990 and 2015.
The estimate of the consumption emissions for the Pacific Islands assumes that the consumption emissions are 1.5 the production emissions. This is based on the comparison of consumption and production emissions of other developing island states. Production emissions are taken from the Carbon Atlas.

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:
Kelsey-Rae Taylor on Kelsey-Rae.Taylor@oxfam.org.nz or +6421 298 5894.

New Zealand’s climate finance lifeline not enough to reach frontline countries – Oxfam

December 10, 2020

New Zealand’s overseas climate finance is a lifeline to many of the world’s poorest countries and communities on the frontlines of climate change, but the level of funding provided until now falls far below what is needed to meet our international obligations, according to Oxfam figures published today.

Oxfam’s new report Standing With The Frontlines, released ahead of the Climate Ambition Summit this weekend, presents fresh analysis which suggests that out of 23 high-income countries, New Zealand’s level of climate finance funding ranks just 21^st when calculated on a per capita basis.

New Zealand performs well in other areas of climate finance, such as providing grants instead of loans. Given that many countries over-inflate their climate finance by counting full loan and non-concessional grant values, New Zealand’s position improves slightly to 14^th when adjusted for grant and grant-equivalent contributions – but is still far below countries of comparable size such as Ireland and Denmark.

Climate finance refers to funding of initiatives that meaningfully contribute to developing countries’ climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. Under international agreements stretching back to 2010, rich countries including New Zealand promised to help mobilise at least USD$100bn in climate finance per year by 2025. The deadline for this collective goal has already been extended once, from 2020, after it became clear that contributions would not meet the required threshold.

According to the latest reported figures, New Zealand provides NZ$10.60 per capita per year in climate finance, or just under NZ$51m per year in total. Despite the government’s goal of providing NZ$75m a year in climate finance through to 2022, the country remains far behind contributing its fair share. Oxfam calculates that New Zealand’s fair share of the US$100bn goal would range between NZ$301.5m and $540m per year.

As many developing countries reel from the effects of coronavirus, climate-induced extreme weather risks are compounding crises and poverty. Climate destruction will undo decades of progress in development and dramatically increase global inequalities. There is an urgent need for climate finance to help countries cope and adapt.

“Compared to other high-income countries, when population is taken into account, New Zealand is not a generous climate finance donor,” said Alex Johnston, Campaigns Lead at Oxfam New Zealand.

Johnston said New Zealand has a moral obligation to developing countries to increase its climate finance. “In the afterglow of a symbolic step to declare a climate change emergency, we’re asking the New Zealand government to step up their climate finance contributions to meet the threshold for urgent action and deliver the vital support to developing countries that is promised.

“New Zealand’s funding of climate action overseas is a crucial way that we can stand with those on the frontlines of climate change. The way we deliver climate finance in the form of grants and with a large proportion towards adaptation sets us up to be a role model for other nations.

“But the quantities we are delivering are just not enough – we need to see a doubling of climate finance levels within a proportionately rising aid budget to get closer to doing our fair share. With the pivotal COP26 talks next year, and when we’ve just declared a climate emergency – now is the time to deliver.

“Climate finance is a lifeline for communities facing record heatwaves, terrifying storms and devastating floods. Wealthy countries like New Zealand, who have the economic capacity to act and the historical responsibility for causing climate change, owe nations on the frontlines urgent and proportionate finance to meet the scale of the crisis on their doorsteps.”

Sign the Bighearts petition, calling for a boost to New Zealand’s overseas aid and climate action here

-ends-

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

Kelsey-Rae Taylor on Kelsey-Rae.Taylor@oxfam.org.nz or +6421 298 5894.

Notes to editors

Download the full report Standing With The Frontlines here
New Zealand’s climate finance contribution stands at US$7 (NZ$10.60) per person. The highest-contributing countries per capita far outstrip this with contributions between US$40 and US$96 per person. Similar sized countries, such as Ireland (US$14 per person) and Denmark (US$27 per person) also surpass New Zealand’s contribution.
Oxfam’s analysis also highlights the need for scrutiny of what is counted as climate finance, as some of New Zealand’s overseas development projects – including one in Myanmar aimed at growing dairy product volumes and markets – had funding attributed to “climate finance” yet had no apparent climate adaptation component.
In July, Oxfam and a dozen of New Zealand’s leading international aid agencies launched a joint campaign, calling for New Zealand to dramatically increase its aid funding and climate finance for poorer countries. Visit www.bighearts.org.nz for more information.

Standing With The Frontlines Report

December 10, 2020

Boosting climate finance for developing and climate-vulnerable countries is a key part of fulfilling the Paris Agreement. New Zealand should double its climate finance to get closer to doing its fair share towards the USD 100 billion goal.

New Zealand’s funding of climate action overseas is crucial to supporting our neighbours in the Pacific and beyond to adapt to the escalating impacts of climate breakdown and transition to a clean energy future.

Sign the Bighearts petition, calling for a boost to New Zealand’s overseas aid and climate action here

Click here to download the ‘Standing With The Frontlines’ report

Campaigners warn that 9 out of 10 people in poor countries are set to miss out on COVID-19 vaccine next year

December 9, 2020

Rich countries have hoarded enough doses to vaccinate their entire populations nearly 3 times over.

Nearly 70 poor countries will only be able to vaccinate one in ten people against COVID-19 next year unless urgent action is taken by governments and the pharmaceutical industry to make sure enough doses are produced, a group of campaigning organisations warned today.

By contrast, wealthier nations have bought up enough doses to vaccinate their entire populations nearly three times over by the end of 2021 if those currently in clinical trials are all approved for use. Canada tops the chart with enough vaccines to vaccinate each Canadian five times. Updated data shows that rich nations representing just 14 per cent of the world’s population have bought up 53 per cent of all the most promising vaccines so far.

The organisations, including Amnesty International, Frontline AIDS, Global Justice Now and Oxfam, who are part of an alliance calling for a People’s Vaccine, used data collected by science information and analytics company Airfinity to analyse the deals done between countries and the eight leading vaccine candidates. They found that 67 low and lower middle-income countries risk being left behind as rich countries move towards their escape route from this pandemic. Five of the 67 – Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan and Ukraine – have reported nearly 1.5 million cases between them.

Anna Marriott, Oxfam’s health policy Manager, said: “No one should be blocked from getting a life-saving vaccine because of the country they live in or the amount of money in their pocket. But unless something changes dramatically, billions of people around the world will not receive a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19 for years to come.”

Heidi Chow, from Global Justice Now, said: “All pharmaceutical corporations and research institutions working on a vaccine must share the science, technological know-how, and intellectual property behind their vaccine so enough safe and effective doses can be produced. Governments must also ensure the pharmaceutical industry puts people’s lives before profits.”

The Pfizer /BioNTech vaccine has already received approval in the UK and vaccinations are beginning this week. It is likely to receive approval from other countries including the US within days. Two further potential vaccines, from Moderna and Oxford in partnership with AstraZeneca are expected to submit or are awaiting regulatory approval. The Russian vaccine, Sputnik, has announced positive trial results and four other candidates are in phase 3 clinical trials.

So far, all of Moderna’s doses and 96 percent of Pfizer/BioNTech’s have been acquired by rich countries. In welcome contrast Oxford/AstraZeneca has pledged to provide 64 percent of their doses to people in developing nations. Yet despite their actions to scale up supply they can still only reach 18 per cent of the world’s population next year at most. Oxford/AstraZeneca deals have also mostly been made with some of the big developing countries like China and India, while the majority of developing countries have not done deals and have to share the COVAX pool of vaccines between them.

This demonstrates that one company alone cannot hope to supply the whole world, and that only open sharing of technology between vaccine producers can make this possible.

The People’s Vaccine Alliance is calling on all pharmaceutical corporations working on COVID-19 vaccines to openly share their technology and intellectual property through the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, so that billions more doses can be manufactured and safe and effective vaccines can be available to all who need them.

The Alliance is also calling on governments to do everything in their power to ensure COVID-19 vaccines are made a global public good—free of charge to the public, fairly distributed and based on need. A first step would be to support South Africa and India’s proposal to the World Trade Organisation Council this week to waive intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccines, tests and treatments until everyone is protected.

Steve Cockburn, Amnesty International’s Head of Economic and Social Justice, said: “The hoarding of vaccines actively undermines global efforts to ensure that everyone, everywhere can be protected from COVID-19. Rich countries have clear human rights obligations not only to refrain from actions that could harm access to vaccines elsewhere, but also to cooperate and provide assistance to countries that need it.

“By buying up the vast majority of the world’s vaccine supply, rich countries are in breach of their human rights obligations. Instead, by working with others to share knowledge and scale up supply, they could help bring an end to the global COVID-19 crisis.”

The vaccines developed by AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech have received more than $5 billion dollars of public funding, which the alliance said placed a responsibility on them to act in the global public interest.

Dr Mohga Kamal Yanni, from the People’s Vaccine Alliance, said: “Rich countries have enough doses to vaccinate everyone nearly three times over, whilst poor countries don’t even have enough to even reach health workers and people at risk.

“The current system, where pharmaceutical corporations use government funding for research, retain exclusive rights and keep their technology secret to boost profits, could cost many lives.”

Lois Chingandu, Director of Frontline AIDS, said: “This pandemic is a global problem that requires a global solution. The global economy will continue to suffer so long as much of the world does not have access to a vaccine.

“We need to put pharmaceutical industry profit aside during this unprecedented pandemic, both to save humanity and the economy.”

Momentum is mounting for a People’s vaccine, which has already been backed by COVID survivors, health experts, activists, past and present world leaders, faith leaders and economists including: Cyril Ramaphosa, Imran Khan, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Gordon Brown, Helen Clark, Mary Robinson, Joseph Stiglitz, John Nkengasong and Thomas Piketty.

Last month in the US, more than 100 high-level leaders from public health, faith-based, racial justice, and labor organizations, joined former members of Congress, economists and artists to sign a public letter calling on President-elect Biden seize on this extraordinary moment and power of the US President to support a People’s Vaccine.

/Ends

Notes to editors:

All figures are based on the fact 2 doses are required apart from the Johnson & Johnson vaccine which is a single dose vaccine.

The Peoples’ Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of global and national organizations and activists united under a common aim of campaigning for a ‘People’s Vaccine’. The call for a People’s Vaccine is backed by past and present world leaders, health experts, faith leaders and economists. For more information visit: https://peoplesvaccine.org

The figures have been calculated by analysing data from Airfinity for November 2020. The statistic ‘9 out of 10 people missing out on vaccines in 67 countries’ is based on the fact that 30 low income countries and 37 lower-middle income countries currently will only have access to any vaccine through the COVAX Advanced Market Commitment (AMC). The 67 countries do not include middle income countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and Vietnam, who have also made their own bilateral deals. So far, the COVAX AMC has managed to secure 700 million doses from the leading vaccine candidates, to be distributed between the 92 countries that have signed up. The figure was reached by dividing 700 million doses by the population of the 92 countries (3.6 billion), then dividing that by two, as two doses are required by the vaccines already secured by COVAX AMC to vaccinate each individual.

Details of the COVAX AMC can be found here: https://www.gavi.org/news/media-room/92-low-middle-income-economies-eligible-access-covid-19-vaccines-gavi-covax-amc

The 67 countries are: Afghanistan, Angola, Algeria, Benin, Bhutan, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Gambia, Ghana, The Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kenya, Kiribati, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Vanuatu, West Bank and Gaza, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Calculations of proportion of doses for rich and poor nations were based on analysing data on supply deals gathered by Airfinity. We examined the vaccine candidates that are in phase three trials that have done significant supply deals with countries across the world, cross-checking with original sources. There are currently eight of these: Astra Zeneca/Oxford, Novovax, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi/GSK, Pfizer/BioNTech, Gamaleya/Sputnik, Moderna and Sinovac.

According to data from Johns Hopkins, Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan and Ukraine have had over 1.46m cases between them: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

For interviews or more information please contact:
Kelsey-Rae Taylor | Kelsey-Rae.Taylor@oxfam.org.nz | 021 298 9854

Are there enough fridges in developing countries for Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine?

December 8, 2020

Sick of hearing about Fridges by Max Lawson - Head of Inequality Policy, Oxfam International

I listen to the World Service news each morning, and I was excited the other day that they said they were going to do a piece on vaccine access in developing countries later in the show. I was pleased as 95% of the coverage of the vaccines issue I have heard seems to completely forget developing countries. Imagine my disappointment when the piece was all about the fact that the Pfizer vaccine needs a super cold refrigerator to be kept without being spoiled, and that distributing the vaccine in developing countries would be hard because they don’t have a ‘super cold-chain’. It was not just the World Service either. Listening to most of the coverage, you would be left thinking that the only thing standing between a citizen of a poor country and the vaccine was the quality of the country’s fridges.

No mention of the fact that rich nations have already bought virtually all the available supply of both Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccine up to the end of 2021. There is literally none for sale to developing countries.

Also no mention of the cost, which is prohibitive for most poor nations. Pfizer’s vaccine costs $40 dollars per person. That is more than the total per capita spending on health in Bangladesh for example. Moderna’s is even more expensive.

I took all of this not just as sign of the terrible quality of today’s journalism, but also as a bit of a personal failure, as we have been campaigning all summer for a People’s Vaccine, focusing on the issues stopping poor people in poor countries accessing a vaccine, but these issues have barely got a hearing so far. Still we must keep fighting.

A broken system for developing medicines for the world.

These first line issues of rich countries buying up supplies and the very high cost have their roots in the underlying model of relying on major pharmaceutical firms to vaccinate the world.

This deeply broken system relies on these huge corporations for global health. It is a system that has consistently failed, prioritising drugs for erectile dysfunction over malaria. Yet rather than use the opportunity of the Coronavirus pandemic to build a better and more rational way of doing things, rich nations have doubled down on this failed approach. As Boris Johnson put it in a recent speech:

‘It isn’t the state that produces the new drugs and therapies we are using. It isn’t the state that will hold the intellectual property of the vaccine, if and when we get one. It was the private sector, with its rational interest in innovation and competition and market share and, yes, sales.’

It is an approach that puts the profit, intellectual property and monopoly of Pharmaceutical corporations ahead of supplying enough cheap and effective vaccines for the world. It is artificially rationing supply, and this in turn will cost lives.

It is fact the case than none of these leading vaccines would exist without the state. The leading vaccine candidates have received billions already in taxpayer’s money. Moderna received billions in US government funding. Pfizer claims it did not, ignoring the uncomfortable fact that its partner, a German firm called BioNTech received hundreds of millions of euro in government funding. It was also BioNtech that invented the vaccine in the first place. Pfizer are effectively just middlemen yet stand to make an absolute fortune with a profit margin of up to 80%.

As the vaccine is rolled out in the UK, US and other rich nations, the world is getting to see what a rational distribution of the vaccine should look like. No doubt some of the richest people in these countries will find a way to get the vaccine whatever happens. Nevertheless, most vaccinations are going to happen in an orderly and rational way, prioritising groups like health workers and the elderly first.

This stands in stark contrast to the way that vaccines are going to be distributed globally. There is actually a WHO led equitable allocation framework, which would see every country having enough vaccines to vaccinate its key workers and other vulnerable groups first. Which makes sense both in terms of global health and in terms of the global economy. Yet sadly this is being completely ignored as rich nations rush to stockpile enough vaccine to vaccinate every single one of their citizens many times over. Meanwhile many poor nations have virtually no access at all. If ever there was a need for a world government, it is now.

Yet back in the world of naked national self-interest, it is hard to blame the leaders of rich nations for wanting to ensure their citizens are safe. That is their job after all. It is a brave political leader who tells a voter in Manchester they must wait to be vaccinated until a health worker in Mali gets the jab. Finding a way to rationally divide up the finite supply was always going to be an uphill struggle.

Rich nations not doing enough to maximise the supply of vaccines

But what I do blame rich country governments for is failing to do everything in their power to instead maximise the supply of cheap, safe and effective vaccines. They have immense leverage over these vaccine producers. The huge public money they have given. The guarantees of purchase, where as bulk purchasers they have huge power. The fact that these firms are based in their countries. All of this leverage and more could have been used to break through the ossified system of secrecy, profit and patent and flood the world with safe and effective vaccines.

The Oxford/ AstraZeneca deal is being contrasted rightly with Pfizer and Moderna. Oxford and AZ have done the majority of their supply deals with developing countries and are producing billions of doses. Their vaccine is far cheaper. There is absolutely no doubt that this deal is vital for most of the world and is the best of the lot so far.

But even this deal is far from ideal. It is still secret. It is still an exclusive license from Oxford University to Astra Zeneca, despite one of the two inventors of the vaccine Adrian Hill commenting early on that: “I personally don’t believe that in a time of pandemic there should be exclusive licenses…. Nobody is going to make a lot of money off this”. Soon after this an exclusive license was exactly what happened, in a rather grubby struggle between academics within Oxford University and involving the Gates Foundation and the UK government. AstraZeneca eventually secured the exclusive deal by promising to help fund a new research institute at the university, and Oxford is set to potentially make a profit of $100 million dollars.

The deal was nevertheless a good one- low ‘not for profit’ prices had to be guaranteed by AZ for some developing countries in perpetuity and for the rest of the world ‘during the pandemic’ (although documents leaked to the Financial Times showed that AZ reserved the right to define when the pandemic finishes, and this could be as early as next summer).

Maybe this was the best deal that could be secured. Maybe it was not. We will never know probably as it is all clouded in secrecy, despite huge public funding. Either way it means most of the world is largely reliant on one company. A company that unlike Pfizer and Moderna, actually saw its share price fall following the announcement of its successful results in November. Markets are punishing Astra Zeneca for having the least profitable of the three deals.

This shows the limits of expecting individual companies to act better. In some ways expecting big Pharma to invest in vaccinating poor people in poor countries is like asking a wolf to be vegetarian. Arguably they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, make money. Often unethically, rapaciously and excessively. Sometimes corruptly and illegally. But their core business is to make money and that is never going to change.

So whilst a far more regulated and policed pharma sector is essential, I think this can only ever be part of the problem of designing and delivering cheap safe and effective vaccines and medicines for all. To do this we need to go beyond market-based solutions to this fundamental human need. Health is a public good, which underpins everything, not least a functioning market economy. Leaving our health to the vagaries of the market can have an astronomical cost for the rest of the economy. The last few months has demonstrated this clearly. Health is simply too important a human need to be left to the market.

What is needed instead is a new strategy, based on the public good. So far this race for a vaccine has shown us the best of humanity, and sadly the worst too. What is needed now is imagination and ambition to build a new and permanent change in the way we develop medicines and vaccines. I think that we need to imagine a far more public system, from the research and development all the way through to the nurse giving you our injection.

The fight for a People’s Vaccine

For the moment such decisive leadership looks sadly unlikely. But we could still see important moves by rich nations and others in the coming months that could make a huge difference. Over a hundred leaders wrote to Joe Biden this week, calling on him to support a People’s Vaccine. He is uniquely placed to put leverage on the majority of the leading vaccine candidates.

Nearly a million people have signed Avaaz’s petition for rich nations to support a waiver on all intellectual property relating to Covid-19 medicines. This proposal has been made jointly by the governments of India and South Africa, and is so far vehemently opposed by the US, EU and UK. The Chinese and the Russian governments have developed successful vaccines and are doing supply deals with countries all over the world, in contrast to rich nations who are only focused on their own.

As the next few months unfold, the world will watch as rich nations vaccinate their populations and beat this disease. At the same time, many, many people will continue to die in developing countries for want of a vaccine. This will put huge moral pressure on the leaders of these rich nations to do more. If we can successfully show the world that rich nations are choosing to put Pharma profit ahead of vaccinating the world, perhaps they will be forced to act. It is certainly something worth fighting for.