View this email in your browser

Unsanitized: The COVID-19 Report for Dec. 11, 2020

Vaccine Development Should Trigger Transformation of the Monopoly Patent
System  

Plus, how corporate profits have soared in the pandemic

 

Science will win, but will people in the developing world? (STRF/STAR
MAX/IPx)

First Response

First off and most important, the FDA advisory committee recommended the
Pfizer vaccine

for emergency use authorization, and the FDA gave every indication that
they would approve the recommendation

as early as tomorrow. (Today would be good too!) It was a great day for
science and next week, when the Moderna vaccine is approved, that will
also be a great day.

Now there have been a couple setbacks. Sanofi/GlaxoSmithKline, which was
one of the six vaccine manufacturers from whom the U.S. had guaranteed
purchases of doses, pushed back their timeline

significantly, after disappointing results in a stage three trial. And
India declined accelerated approval

for the AstraZeneca vaccine, whose results had been not as good as
Pfizer or Moderna but promising, and also confusing because of a dosage
issue.

Overall, however, you have to be happy that we're in a position to
think about how to make sure people come back

for their second shot rather than how long we're going to have to wait
for an effective vaccine. It's the beginning of the end of a terrible
virus.

But is it only the end of the beginning for the developing world?

**Read all of our Unsanitized reports here**

Click to Support The American Prospect

There's a serious concern that rich countries are hoarding the vaccine

and making it impossible for the developing world to access. There's a
proposal

before the World Trade Organization to suspend all patent rights on
coronavirus vaccines, due to the exceptional nature of the pandemic. And
the U.S., UK, EU and other nations are blocking it
,
despite a majority of nations in support. Remember that the successful
vaccines we have were all developed with at least some public funds, and
buoyed by public purchasing commitments. So the rich nations are
blocking universal access so the public, who paid for the vaccine once,
will have to pay twice.

Moderna says casually that they will not enforce any of its patents, but
they also will not supply the detailed information needed to replicate
the vaccine. AstraZeneca has stated it won't make a profit on the
vaccine for the duration of the pandemic, but has the ability under that
standard to call an end to the pandemic early. This is a replay of how
HIV drugs were limited in the developing world, and generics crushed to
maximize pharmaceutical profits.

The New York Times gave a pharma lobbyist

a chance to respond to this, that there wouldn't be increased supply
from suspending the patents so we shouldn't do it, along with the
familiar argument that lack of patent protection would stunt innovation.
Suspending the patents would actually massively increase production of
the vaccine, of course, bringing into play pharmaceutical plants around
the world. We should have been investing massive amounts of money all
for vaccine production and still should
,
refashioning plants to produce it. Patents are one reason why that's
unlikely to happen; even if the companies license out production, it
will be done in limited ways to increase prices and profits.

We Can't Do This Without You

This extends to treatments. We're already seeing how Trump cronies

are among the only people

able to access monoclonal antibodies right now. These of course are
patent-protected and reliant on manufacturers that are unlikely to allow
generic production.

As for the long-run threat to innovation, considering that these
companies used public money to develop the vaccine, and it worked in
record time, the only thing that should be questioned is the current
patent-based system. Innovation seemed to work fine with what amounts to
a public process.

Dean Baker has a much more thorough review

of this important debate. The vaccine example should offer a lesson: the
way we commonly develop and distribute prescription medications, the
for-profit, patent-based approach, isn't locked in as the only option.

Give Now in Our End of Year Fundraising Drive

Winners and Losers

It appears that there's some minor movement

on a skinnier-than-skinny deal on COVID relief. The bipartisan $908
billion proposal is all but dead
.
This new effort would include "noncontroversial" items like a
resumption of the PPP, some money for schools and health systems, and
maybe an extension of the two expiring unemployment programs. (Hey, I
know what'd noncontroversial: getting the vaccine out to everyone
!)

Let me not irresponsibly raise hopes. This is talk, not necessarily
action. Congress has shown itself incapable

of addressing significant challenges, as the leadership-in this case,
Mitch McConnell-would rather watch the world burn
.
I get his impulse to destroy a Biden presidency, but he is materially
risking the loss of his Senate majority

in order to do it.

Sometimes, however, you just have to keep it simple. And Kevin Drum did
that

with a revelation from the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds report. It
shows that, when looking at national income, corporate profits and
"proprietors' income," have both soared past their expected growth
despite the pandemic. Employee compensation, meanwhile, has yet to fully
recover. The transfer from workers to owners is about $40 billion.

I keep hearing about this historic rescue package called the CARES Act
that saved the country and the little guy. My point all along was that
it was temporary
.
The chart in Kevin's piece is a graphical depiction of how CARES
wasn't enough. Tear away the aggregates and you have a rescue that
improved corporate balance sheets and manager compensation at the
expense of workers. Analysts expect this to continue
into 2021.
So why would Republicans give a damn about more relief?

Days Without a Bailout Oversight Chair

259
.  

Support Independent, Fact-Checked Journalism

Today I Learned

* State programs to rescue small business

are not likely to have enough impact. (New York Times)

* Why a trucking company with private equity ownership got a national
security loan

remains one of the bailout's enduring mysteries. (Wall Street Journal)

* CDC official told to erase evidence

of White House involvement in the regulatory process. (HuffPost)

* The Lee Fang beat: lobbyists angling

for "essential worker" vaccine status for their industries, and
entertainment lobbyists getting special treatment

in California. (The Intercept)

* States stepping in to provide corporate immunity

on COVID lawsuits, as the federal government has stalled. (National Law
Review)

* Two Americas: mortgage originations on track for the "best year ever
."
(Wall Street Journal)

* New Hampshire's House Speaker dies from COVID-19
.
(Boston.com)

**Click the social links below to share this newsletter**

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

YOUR TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION SUPPORTS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM

Copyright (C) 2020 The American Prospect. All rights reserved.
_________________

Sent to [email protected]

Unsubscribe:
[link removed]

The American Prospect, Inc., 1225 I Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC xxxxxx, United States