Should Germany Cease It's Resistance to Waive COVID 19 Vaccine Patents? - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should Germany Permit Waivers for COVID 19 Vaccine Patents?

No votes
Offer Waivers Only to Nations That are in Dire Need and have an Emergency
Should Germany Permit Waivers for COVID 19 Vaccine Patents?

An article from CNN discusses this issue. I personally think Germany should cease it's resistance to waiving COVID 19 patents given the global threat that COVID poses to other human beings around the globe as well as the global economy. What is your opinion?

Rob Picheta and Schams Elwazer of CNN wrote:Germany is resisting momentum to lift patent protection for Covid-19 vaccines, saying Thursday that a US decision to support such waivers "has significant implications for vaccine production."

US President Joe Biden said Wednesday the US would support the easing of patent rules on Covid-19 vaccines, potentially expanding global supplies, as a devastating wave envelops India and calls grow louder for rich countries to narrow the gap with the developing world.

The World Health Organization has called for patents on Covid-19 vaccines to be temporarily lifted until the global health crisis is under control.

But a German government spokeswoman said on Thursday that the "protection of intellectual property is a source of innovation" and the Biden administration's move would have "significant implications for vaccine production."

"The limiting factor in vaccine manufacturing is production capacity and high quality standards, not patents," the spokeswoman said. ... index.html
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 07 May 2021 13:17, edited 1 time in total.

What patents on COVID-19 vaccines does Germany have and what patents on COVID-19 vaccines does the United States have?

I like this quote from this specific article:

Amy Maxmen of wrote:Proponents of the waiver disagree, pointing out that generics manufacturers have been supplying the world with high-quality vaccines and medicines for years. They point out that taxpayers helped to foot the bill for the development of several COVID-19 vaccines, and say that the claim that pharmaceutical companies must recoup all the costs is therefore unfair — especially during a crisis. Several other obstacles must be addressed, however, such as making sure distribution is equitable.

Cohen says: “These vaccines are an unparalleled triumph for science, but if only 20% or 30% of the world winds up benefiting, what is the point of the innovation?”

If those pharmaceutical companies can take taxpayer money, they can accept having their patents waived during a global emergency.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, Germany just announced that it is not going to waive patents.

That did not last long.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. :|

The Germans will do nothing to damage their own industrial export-led economy. It is what has always validated them as a nation in the aftermath of WWII - their "economic miracle" is an essential part of their self-image as a successful nation. They won't do anything which might damage that. Not ever, and not for any reason. This is why they were steadfast in the financial crash of 2008, no matter how much Greece squealed. They will never waive their industrial or medical patents.

Well, I am glad to see Joe is willing to lift patents to help address the global coronavirus pandemic. I think Germany is making a mistake first from a moral and ethical standard but also from a business standard. The reason it is a mistake from a business standard is that so long as the pandemic goes unchecked globally, that's less people they can sell their products to because those people can't work because of imposed lockdowns or they are sick and then they can't buy German products.


Actually, I think the Pfizer vaccine is effective against the South African variant. Moderna and some of the other vaccines are effective against the South African variants though I can't say for sure.


Here is an article from the Washington Post that provides more insight into it.

Carolyn Y. Johnson of the Washington Post wrote:
The Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine provides strong protection against two concerning variants of the virus, including the one that has most worried scientists because it can evade parts of the immune response, according to new data from Qatar.

The study, published as a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was about 90 percent effective at blocking infections caused by the B.1.1.7 variant, a more transmissible version of the virus now fueling outbreaks around the world. That encouraging finding was not a surprise, but the study also found that efficacy eroded only slightly, to 75 percent, against the B.1.351 variant that was first detected in South Africa.

The B.1.351 variant carries mutations that help it elude some antibodies and as a result is considered by many experts the most challenging variant among those that have been identified. Because the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and one from the biotechnology company Moderna were tested in clinical trials before that variant emerged, it had remained unclear until now whether protection would be eroded by the variant. While the new study suggests the vaccine is somewhat less protective against the variant, it offered strong protection, particularly against severe, critical or fatal cases of covid-19, the illness caused by the virus.

On Wednesday, Moderna announced results of tests of two booster shot options: one, a third shot of the original vaccine, and the other a third shot tailored against the B.1.351 variant.

In a small study of 40 participants, the company found that six to eight months after vaccination, antibodies to the original strain of the virus remained high, but protection against B.1.351 and another variant, P.1, had dropped in half of the participants.

Boosters of the original shot were effective at topping off immunity, and the B.1.351-specific booster was more effective at boosting antibodies that block that variant. The company is also testing a combination booster shot that contains the original vaccine and the one tailored to the variant.

The shot developed by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford did not work against the B.1.351 variant in a small study, and South Africa decided not to use the vaccine.

But so far, that appears to be an outlier. The coronavirus vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson was 72 percent effective in the United States, dropping to 64 percent in South Africa, where the B.1.351 variant dominated. An experimental vaccine developed by the Maryland biotech company Novavax was 89 percent effective in Britain, where the B.1.1.7 variant became dominant, but 49 percent in South Africa, where B.1.351 accounted for most cases. When excluding HIV-positive people, the Novavax vaccine was 60 percent effective in the South Africa study.

“We should expect a degree of reduction in protection against B.1.351, but not to the extent we should be freaking out about it,” said John P. Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine who was not involved in the study.

The Qatar study was not a randomized trial, regarded as the gold standard for medical evidence, but instead used real-world data from a mass vaccination program that began in late December. By the end of March, more than 385,000 people had received at least one dose of vaccine, and the country’s new cases of infection were split almost evenly between the two variants.

Several experts said that although such studies have limitations, the findings were fascinating and important — and also underscored the necessity of getting both doses of the two-shot Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine.

People receiving only one shot of the vaccine against B.1.1.7 were provided protection of only 30 percent, and it fell to 17 percent against B.1.351.

“It really strongly emphasizes, with the variants, that need for the second dose,” said Kathleen Neuzil, director of the Center for Vaccine Development at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. “Which is a message we’ve been delivering, but now we have human clinical data to support that message.”

For months, laboratory scientists have taken blood serum samples from people who were vaccinated and checked how well their antibodies block virus variants from entering cells. They have consistently found the largest drop-off in protection connected with the B.1.351 variant first detected in South Africa. ... -variants/
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 07 May 2021 13:26, edited 1 time in total.

What patents do German companies own on Cornavirus? I looked up Pfizer and my understanding is that Pfizer is an American company founded by German immigrants long ago here in the U.S. They still remain an American company from my understanding though they operate globally. I am assuming given this is the case, the German government would be unable to protect the patents of that particular company when it comes to the U.S. decision to lift some of the patents to help address the coronavirus pandemic.
Heisenberg wrote:Yes

And if it doesn't, well, there's always repartition, for their own good.

This time, I vote for North, East, South and West. I love Germany so much, I want there to be more Germanies! :excited:

I like the way you think, comrade.... :)
I haven't read up on this, so take this with a grain of salt.

But I am thinking somebody, maybe the Biden team, goofed. You do negotiations in private, and a complicated situation like this would require a lot of negotiation.

You only announce the plan after you get a deal, or at least really close to a nailed down deal.
Politics_Observer wrote:@B0ycey

I don't know much about how the pharmaceuticals conduct research or their industry. I just hear a lot about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines given they seem to be the most effective.

They are new innovative vaccines that use mRNA technology. My instinct is that Germany fears losing the monopoly on this rather than saving lives if drug manufacturers were given the IP for free. In other words Capitalism before lives. In that sense I am not surprised of Germanys stance actually and understand it. I just wish we stopped pretending this has anything to do with supply of resources.
Politics_Observer wrote:Should Germany Permit Waivers for COVID 19 Vaccine Patents?

An article from CNN discusses this issue. I personally think Germany should cease it's resistance to waiving COVID 19 patents given the global threat that COVID poses to other human beings around the globe as well as the global economy. What is your opinion? ... index.html

No. The reason why US wants the patents removed is for Pfizer to mass produce it without paying royalties to german inventers. It is as simple as that. So the answer is definiately no. That is straight up unfair racket.
@B0ycey @Heisenberg

Well, Moderna is a pretty effective COVID vaccine and they are testing booster shots aimed at the South African variant. I think it uses the same technology as the Pfizer vaccine. I got vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine and some of my family members got vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine. Moderna, from what I understand and read online is made here in America, so it would seem the U.S. could make this vaccine available to the rest of the world and it's pretty effective to boot.

The Centers for Disease Control here in the United States states:

Centers for Disease Control wrote:Based on evidence from clinical trials, the Moderna vaccine was 94.1% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness in people who received two doses who had no evidence of being previously infected. ... derna.html

I think Pfizer is 95% effective whereas Moderna is 94% effective. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are not as effective against the South African variant and Pfizer appears to be a little more effective against the South African variant than the Moderna vaccine. This article states below:

Ralph Ellis of WebMD wrote:The key finding: The percentage of positive antibodies that neutralized the South African variant was 12.4 fold lower for the Moderna vaccine than against the original coronavirus and 10.3 fold lower for the Pfizer vaccine, the study says.

The researchers found that the two vaccines still appear to work well against the variant first found in the U.K.

“Overall, the neutralizing activity against B.1.1.7 was essentially unchanged, but significantly lower against B.1.351,” the study said.

Both Pfizer and Moderna have previously said their vaccines work better against the U.K. variant than the South African variant.

The new lab study differed from previous studies because it used real forms of the variant taken from people who’d been infected with the virus. Earlier studies used manufactured forms of the South African variant and showed a higher level of effectiveness for the vaccines. ... a-vaccines

It seems though that both Moderna and Pfizer do still provide a significant level of protection against the South African variant though not as potent against the other COVID variants. However, Moderna is testing a booster shot to be used against the South African variant.

Moderna has stated it won't enforce the patents on it's vaccine and it appears to have been developed here in the United States and not in Germany. With a 94% effectiveness against COVID that could prove useful to the rest of the world.
You are preaching to the Choir @Politics_Observer. I know both I and Heisenburg support the waiver. Besides it is meant to be temporary and restricted to Covid Vaccines anyway. All I am saying is Germany (I guess) is afraid of drug manufacturers, especially those based in the third world, piggybacking on their research and then advancing on it. I cannot think of another reason for their concerns. If it was all about saving lives they would support the waiver.
The thing that gets me is from what I have been told is the Pfizer vaccine essentially was funded by the German taxpayers. If that is the case, so long as the German taxpaying public who has funded the vaccine doesn't mind or care, it would be unfair for Pfizer to deny a life saving vaccine to the rest of the world given that they received German taxpayer money to fund that invention.

However, given it was German public that funded the creation of such a vaccine, I think it is up to them to decide whether it should be made available along with their government. It appears their government has taken the side of Pfizer in this case, which their government represents the will of the German people and as such, we have to respect that.

But Moderna could prove useful it would seem and they have stated they would not enforce the patent on their vaccine. As well my understanding was that this vaccine was developed here in the U.S. and not Germany. So, the US could very well end up helping to provide vaccine supplies of Moderna to the rest of the world it would seem. At least it seems that way to me based on the information that is available to me.
Politics_Observer wrote:@JohnRawls

Moderna has stated it won't enforce the patents on it's vaccine and it appears to have been developed here in the United States and not in Germany. With a 94% effectiveness against COVID that could prove useful to the rest of the world.

Pfizer is the main concern here. Moderna doesn't need to pay itself that is not how it works. Pfizer on the other hand needs to pay Biontech i assume. AstraZeneca/Oxford also probably don't need to pay Oxford because it was heavily funded by the government and the company.

The rest really don't matter that much nor have they agreed to waver the patents.

Biontech was not heavily funded by the government and that is why they were first to market so they need not to confirm with additional demands like Moderna had to.

Well, @Doug64 , since you are going to dismiss an[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

As I said, those who don't get vaccinated are sim[…]

America is such an awful country that it's citize[…]

It seems the discussion is still in the limits of […]