FOWC with Fandango — Propensity

FOWCWelcome to February 2, 2021 and to Fandango’s One-Word Challenge (aka, FOWC). It’s designed to fill the void after WordPress bailed on its daily one-word prompt.

I will be posting each day’s word just after midnight Pacific Time (US).

Today’s word is “propensity.”

Write a post using that word. It can be prose, poetry, fiction, non-fiction. It can be any length. It can be just a picture or a drawing if you want. No holds barred, so to speak.

Once you are done, tag your post with #FOWC and create a pingback to this post if you are on WordPress. Please check to confirm that your pingback is there. If not, please manually add your link in the comments.

And be sure to read the posts of other bloggers who respond to this prompt. You will marvel at their creativity.

22 thoughts on “FOWC with Fandango — Propensity

  1. Pingback: In Enemy Territory
  2. Marleen February 2, 2021 / 12:23 pm

    While some people have a propensity to blame Jews for almost anything they can think of or that they are particularly fearful of (and such has been an aspect of the Q-Anon ridiculousness), some of the same things that are said of Jews in viral fake news are said, instead, of Bill Gates. I tried to find a place on one [of multiple ones belonging to someone who visits here at Fandango’s blog sometimes] of James’ sites, where I had said this about Gates. I couldn’t find it (with not-too-long an effort). One of my reasons for sharing the fact that things James was disturbed about, back whenever that was, were currently also being said of the famous Bill Gates (who is not Jewish and not a Jew) — who has been through monopoly hearings before — was to say that the concerns could turn out to be somewhat true with regard to Bill Gates.

    Lots and even most people (in the United States anyway) have a propensity to “believe in” an unexplained capitalism or markets, especially the “free” market where you pull yourself up by your bootstraps, too, and a hidden hand saves us all. It’s a myth in the worst sense of the word. Throwing the people’s money at big pharma is only one example of the regular handing up to big money.

    I originally heard this specific news (a couple days ago) elsewhere, but I lost that link. A search got me this more in-depth treatment.

    What I have quoted, below, is roughly the middle and last thirds of the following article. I recommend the first third as well.
    They Pledged to Donate Rights to Their COVID Vaccine,
    Then Sold Them to Pharma

    By Jay Hancock
    AUGUST 25, 2020

    In the United States and other developed nations, the solution to drug-company reluctance was to shower them with billions of dollars in public funds to persuade them to help. The Trump administration has announced deals worth more than $10 billion with seven companies to try to turn basic research—often funded by the government—into effective, widely distributed vaccines—but with no guarantee they would be widely affordable or available.

    That approach has driven up stock prices in the past four months and enriched drug executives betting with somebody else’s money.

    AstraZeneca stock and options owned by CEO Pascal Soriot have increased by nearly $15 million in value since early April, according to calculations by KHN based on company disclosures. The stock hit an all-time high in July. The stock market value of Novavax, a biotech that never recorded a profit in more than two decades, soared tenfold to $10 billion after a nonprofit and the Trump administration agreed to give it $1.6 billion to make a vaccine.

    Companies “say we have to charge high prices because we are taking a risk,” said Mohga Kamal-Yanni, an independent consultant on global health based in the United Kingdom. “Actually, the public is taking the risk. The public is paying for the cost of research and development and probably the cost of manufacturing as well.”

    Moderna, another company working on a vaccine candidate, received nearly $1 billion from the U.S. government to pay essentially all costs to research the product and get it approved by regulators. It’s using a vaccine designed in large part by the National Institutes of Health and academic scientists using federal grants.

    If the vaccine works, the company gets an additional $1.5 billion to cover 100 million doses, a deal that U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat, likened to giving taxpayers “the privilege of purchasing that same vaccine that we already paid for.” That deal comes to $15 a dose. Moderna told Wall Street analysts it might charge as much as $37 a dose for smaller-volume contracts.

    “This is greedy, and the taxpayers who have funded all of this should have expected better negotiation on the part of the U.S. government,” said Margaret Liu, a globally respected vaccine scientist who once worked for Merck and is now chairperson of the International Society for Vaccines.

    The U.S. Health and Human Services Department “conducted extensive market research and price analysis” to ensure prices are fair, said a senior HHS official who asked for anonymity. “We are prohibited from disclosing price discussions and details.”

    Even if Moderna distributed a successful vaccine at a loss to make it widely available, it would reap enormous benefits because government support would have helped validate its technology for future products, Liu said. Moderna did not respond to requests for comment.

    Nonprofits such as Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders have been pressuring drug companies to change for years. Exclusive patents and high prices that sometimes make lifesaving medicines unaffordable in rich countries often render them completely unavailable in the poor world, they argue.

    One workaround has been enormous private and government subsidies, including from the U.K., the United States and the Gates Foundation, to promote developing-nation vaccines through the Geneva nonprofit Gavi, formerly known as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization.

    The Gates Foundation helped launch another non-governmental organization, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, in 2017. CEPI was created to fight something exactly like the coronavirus: potential infectious threats ignored or slighted by pharmaceutical companies.

    CEPI’s early principles of “equitable access” drew praise from reformers. The group asked for public data disclosure from drug-company grantees, “transparent” accounting to show true vaccine cost and the right to step in and take over a vaccine project if the developer failed to deliver.

    The pharma industry immediately objected. Even though they were bankrolled by public money, drug companies were “concerned about the precedent that could be set if they allowed an outside entity, in this case CEPI, to set [the] price of a product unilaterally,” CEPI reported in February. The nonprofit backed down, removing most references to prices in a new policy that Doctors Without Borders called “an alarming step backwards.”

    The original policy was intended to be “interim,” and CEPI’s “commitment to equitable access as a principle is the same,” said spokesperson Rachel Grant.

    Some thought the worst infectious disease crisis in a century, along with the enormous public investments, would change industry behavior. Governments could have demanded transparency and low prices. They could have offered developers cash prizes for vaccines that would have incentivized science but let the public retain the marketing rights, said Love, of Knowledge Ecology International. [James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology is introduced in the first third of the article.]

    Agreement by researchers to publish the virus genome in January set the stage for global scientific cooperation, many believed.

    “The full sequence was shared with the world without any strings attached,” said Manuel Martin, a U.K.-based adviser to Doctors Without Borders on access to medical innovations.

    The World Health Organization set up a “COVID-19 Technology Access Pool” to promote the sharing of patents and other knowledge. Oxford stepped forward and said it would offer nonexclusive, royalty-free licenses for its vaccine, meaning multiple parties could sell it at a low cost.

    “I personally don’t believe that in a time of pandemic there should be exclusive licenses,” Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, which is developing the vaccine, told The New York Times in April.

    Instead, little has changed. No vaccine maker has offered open licenses, although NIH is sharing key technology it developed with multiple vaccine companies. Governments are signing lucrative deals with manufacturers to ensure vaccines for their own populations. WHO has made no announcements about contributions to its COVID-19 shared technology pool since it launched in May, patent experts said. WHO officials did not respond to a reporter’s queries.

    After Oxford announced the exclusive AstraZeneca deal, the company said it would sell vaccines at no profit—but only during the pandemic. Johnson & Johnson’s pledge to earn no vaccine profit is similarly limited.

    With financial information kept confidential, no one will be able to confirm whether the vaccines are truly being sold at cost. And if vaccine immunity is only temporary and endemic coronavirus strains require regular shots for years, the companies will make plenty of money down the road, critics say.

    Under its deal with AstraZeneca, Oxford will receive no royalties during the pandemic but could make millions after it ends through a web of patents including those held by Vaccitech, a for-profit spinoff. Vaccitech’s ownership includes a 50% stake held directly or indirectly by Oxford and 5.25% each owned by Hill and Jenner’s other top vaccine scientist, Sarah Gilbert, U.K. regulatory filings show.

    The potential for vaccine profits at Vaccitech was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

    Pharma company officials say that only decades of industry research could have made it even possible to produce a coronavirus vaccine at the present speed.

    “The federal government cannot research, develop and manufacture vaccines and other new treatments on its own,” said Andrew Powaleny, a spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a lobbying group. Large and early government investment “is a well-accepted approach to addressing public health crises,” he said.

    Many argue that a health crisis is not the time to worry about overpaying for vaccines or backing some candidates that won’t deliver. Getting a good vaccine as quickly as possible requires spreading bets, they say.

    “Spending some extra billions on vaccines is the right choice when human life is at stake and trillions in economic loss is at risk,” said Edward Scolnick, a top scientist at the Broad Institute and former head of research for Merck. He owns no stock in Merck or other pharma companies, he said.

    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.

    “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.

    “[Bill] Gates has staked out this outsized role in the vaccine world,” Love said. …

    The Gates Foundation requires all its grantees to commit to making products “widely available at an affordable price,” a spokesperson said.

    Oxford officials, including Hill and Gilbert, did not respond to requests for comment. AstraZeneca, for its part, would set a “reasonable” post-pandemic price and is “committed to ensure equitable access, globally” in the meantime, a spokesperson said. The company has signed deals with CEPI, Gavi and the Serum Institute of India to bring more than a billion doses to low- and middle-income countries, he said.

    If nothing else, governments and vaccine makers should be open about their relationships, including making contracts public, said Duncan Matthews, a patent law professor at the Queen Mary University of London.

    “We simply don’t know what’s in these deals,” he said. …

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.