Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[wolfgal]

this last post has value.

let's consider the scenario where the variants are getting away from humanity (the globe's efforts) entirely...

let's imagine it is year 2025, and they call it covid-25, and things are breaking down in different places all over the globe. the newer variants are killing, creating tighter borders, higher control, more lockdowns, more screen-leeches, more messed-up kids, much havoc economically, disruptions in food chains (coffee, bananas, whatever), more depression, isolation, desperation, more misery. and... the new variants jump to pets/animals...

hold that messy thought...

let's take the example of Scotland and the UK in general (bravo guys!!!!! really so happy for this wonderful place!!!) where the quick roll-out is really improving things. what if this kind of roll-out was happening everywhere today? could we perhaps prevent the messy scenario above?

maybe

so this begs the question: how is it the big vaccine companies are allowed to play the profit game, the old fashioned way, business as usual, especially since the virus has been proven to mutate towards deadliness (the latest NYC one, for example) and spread so easily.

i wonder if our leaders, if the press will not question the old way, if they will not be bold enough to ask these companies to give out the formula worldwide, so that manufacturers can make and distribute the vaccines.

i know that most westerners will cry "socialism" by now but... but what if things do get much worse? what then?

like Cruisermon (above) said, most ASSUME we will get a handle on this and we will bounce back.

my point: it may be worth considering what happens if they don't.




wolfgal

[Exile]

Originally Posted by wolfgal

so this begs the question: how is it the big vaccine companies are allowed to play the profit game, the old fashioned way, business as usual, especially since the virus has been proven to mutate towards deadliness (the latest NYC one, for example) and spread so easily.

i wonder if our leaders, if the press will not question the old way, if they will not be bold enough to ask these companies to give out the formula worldwide, so that manufacturers can make and distribute the vaccines.

Is there evidence that vaccine mfgs. are engaged in profiteering, and aren't otherwise doing everything they can to pump out and distribute as many doses as possible? I've neither read nor heard this, but if true I would certainly like to be informed.

[wolfgal]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is there evidence that vaccine mfgs. are engaged in profiteering, and aren't otherwise doing everything they can to pump out and distribute as many doses as possible? I've neither read nor heard this, but if true I would certainly like to be informed.

good question Exile... and yes, this is what the news seems to be telling us.

however, what if the vaccine companies were not the only ones to pump out and distribute the doses?

what if the best vaccine formulas (which are property of the companies like Pfizer and J&J, etc) were made available to any qualified manufacturers worldwide?

sorry, didn't mean to highjack the thread, Dockhead. given the improving situation in the UK, it seems as though lockdowns and curfews are not as effective as vaccine roll-outs. and i understand how fed up the Northern folk are with all this. Folks in frenchie-land are too (and are headed into more lockdowns).

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is there evidence that vaccine mfgs. are engaged in profiteering, and aren't otherwise doing everything they can to pump out and distribute as many doses as possible? I've neither read nor heard this, but if true I would certainly like to be informed.

Originally Posted by wolfgal

....good question Exile... and yes, this is what the news seems to be telling us. ....

New reports are not always to be believed .

The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is being distributed on a not-for-profit basis for the duration of the pandemic. The date was initially set to mid 2021, but may be extended given the pandemic will clearly not be over by then. The vaccine will apparently be available in perpetuity on a non profit basis to “low- and middle-income countries in the developing world”.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by wolfgal

good question Exile... and yes, this is what the news seems to be telling us.

however, what if the vaccine companies were not the only ones to pump out and distribute the doses?

what if the best vaccine formulas (which are property of the companies like Pfizer and J&J, etc) were made available to any qualified manufacturers worldwide?

Only did a cursory Google search, but only found conjecture and opinion on this issue. No actual evidence of profiteering, or more to the point withholding production and therefore supply for the sake of profiteering.

I don't know the specific answer to your suggestion about increasing production with the help of other cos., except there's always a balance that must be weighed between rewarding innovation and new technology with patent rights, and making pharmaceuticals plentiful and inexpensive enough for the sake of the public good. When you look at the sheer number of people who have been vaccinated around the world at this point (in the US alone ~1M daily), it looks impressive. But then I have no information about how many more vaccinations are possible. But given the speed in which any vaccine was actually developed (defying most predictions), and the number of people vaccinated in only the past few months, I would be hesitant to rely on anything other than direct evidence of profiteering before I made any conclusions about the entire industry.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

New reports are not always to be believed .

The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is being distributed on a not-for-profit basis for the duration of the pandemic. The date was initially set to mid 2021, but may be extended given the pandemic will clearly not be over by then. The vaccine will apparently be available in perpetuity on a non profit basis to “low- and middle-income countries in the developing world”.

Thanks for this SWL. Something I didn't know. The pharma industry is one of those that many love to hate (and for good reason in some cases), but I wasn't aware of such criticism when it comes to how they have been handling Covid vaccines. Based on what we were told in the early days of the pandemic, I've personally found their breakthroughs and mass production rather miraculous. But I'm always happy to be corrected with credible information.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

. . . I've personally found their breakthroughs and mass production rather miraculous.. . .

You and me both.



We don't mind that Facebook is worth a trillion dollars, but the industry which saves mankind from a 100 year freak event -- we begrudge a PROFIT? That is simply perverted.



The profit rewards shareholders (mostly retirees) for having invested in the industry -- which investment was exactly what built the capacity to work the miracles which have saved mankind. In my book probably the most richly deserved reward in economic history.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... the industry which saves mankind from a 100 year freak event -- we begrudge a PROFIT? That is simply perverted.
... In my book probably the most richly deserved reward in economic history.

I don't begrudge pharma profits. I do recognize them.
“Can a pharma company change?” ~ by Joel Lexchin
Profit, not altruism, motivates COVID-19 vaccine development
The pharmaceutical industry opposes the suspension of intellectual property rights on COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, and no pharma companies have yet contributed to the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool.
“... We should applaud drug companies for developing multiple vaccines in record time, but let’s not be under any illusion about whether a drug company can change. In the end it is profits that are motivating them.”
➥ https://theconversation.com/can-a-ph...lopment-151739

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You and me both.



We don't mind that Facebook is worth a trillion dollars, but the industry which saves mankind from a 100 year freak event -- we begrudge a PROFIT? That is simply perverted.



The profit rewards shareholders (mostly retirees) for having invested in the industry -- which investment was exactly what built the capacity to work the miracles which have saved mankind. In my book probably the most richly deserved reward in economic history.

It makes the argument very sympathetic, even if not true. 30% of the US market is owned in retirement accounts.
Big Pharma is often detested in the US because of their price gouging - or is it just free market capitalism? Common meds that I have to deal with are usd$450 a month in the US and easily available in a half dozen other countries I've cruised to at usd$45 to 65 a months supply. And no, these are government subsidized prices.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul L

It makes the argument very sympathetic, even if not true. 30% of the US market is owned in retirement accounts.
Big Pharma is often detested in the US because of their price gouging - or is it just free market capitalism? Common meds that I have to deal with are usd$450 a month in the US and easily available in a half dozen other countries I've cruised to at usd$45 to 65 a months supply. And no, these are government subsidized prices.

Perhaps 30% (or something) is held directly in retirement accounts, but almost 100% of the shares of public company are held by -- the public -- and are directly are indirectly part of the retirement of broad sectors of the public. See: http://www.oecd.org/corporate/Owners...-Companies.pdf

Price gouging in medicine (not just pharma) is common in the U.S., and needs to be solved.

But there is a lot of daylight between price gouging and earning a normal profit. We should be glad for companies to earn a profit from an event like this -- it gives them an incentive to invest in preparations for the next crisis like this.

[Dockhead]

Various news from Russia:

Manufacture and distribution of the Russian vaccines is running so far ahead that they are now vaccinating homeless people and undocumented aliens:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/...omeless-a73028

There is even a glut of Sputnik V:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/...exports-a73019

exacerbated by consideration vaccination hesitancy among Russians. Production will reach 40 million per month by summer, supercharged by the use of 200 liter bioreactors (compare to 5 liter bioreactors used in the West).

The manufacturer of Sputnik V is also testing a combination vaccine of Sputnik V plus the AstraZeneca vaccine.

A number of EU countries, including even Germany, have expressed interest in acquiring supplied of Sputnik V.

With travel restrictions considerably eased for Russia, and with no lines now at all for vaccination, Moscow (or St. Pete) could be good places for CFers in Europe to go to get the jab.

Lastly the bad news: Official pandemic death statistics put Russia in the least affected one-third of European countries, with only 592 deaths per million. However, the officials statistics cannot be believed -- Russia actually has the highest excess death rate in Europe, and fifth highest in the world: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/...angrier-a72981. So I think that it's pretty safe to say that Russia is the hardest hit country in Europe.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... Price gouging in medicine (not just pharma) is common in the U.S., and needs to be solved.

But there is a lot of daylight between price gouging and earning a normal profit. We should be glad for companies to earn a profit from an event like this -- it gives them an incentive to invest in preparations for the next crisis like this.

For years pharmaceutical companies have featured in the list of the top profit making companies, claiming that the industry needs extraordinary profits, to fund risky and innovative research and development (R&D), for new drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies claim to develop new drugs, to treat new diseases, through research and development (R&D) investment, to create a next-generation profit source, or develop relatively cost-effective drugs to maximize enterprise value.

Drug companies tend to say they are unique in needing to spend a higher proportion of their capital on research, than almost any other industry.
But of all the companies in the world, the one that invests the most in research and development is not a drug company. It’s Amazon [1]. The online retailer spends about $20 billion a year on R&D, despite being renowned for both low prices and low profit margins [< 5%].

The most telling data [2] on a disconnect between drug prices and research costs has received almost no public attention. Peter Bach, a researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and his colleagues compared prices of the top 20 best-selling drugs in the United States to the prices in Europe and Canada.
They found that the cumulative revenue from the price difference on just these 20 drugs more than covers all the drug research and development costs conducted by the 15 drug companies that make those drugs—and then some.
To be more precise, after accounting for the costs of all research—about $80 billion a year—drug companies had $40 billion more from the top 20 drugs alone, all of which went straight to profits, not research. More excess profit comes from the next 100 or 200 brand-name drugs.

The pharmaceutical industry spends about one-fifth of what it says it spends, on the research and development (R&D) of new drugs, destroying the chief argument it uses against making prescription drugs affordable to middle and low-income seniors, a Public Citizen investigation has found.
The findings are contained in a Public Citizen report, "Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry’s R&D Scare Card" [3].
The report reveals how major U.S. drug companies and their Washington lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), have carried out a misleading campaign to scare policymakers and the public.
PhRMA’s central claim is that the industry needs extraordinary profits to fund “risky” and innovative research and development to discover new drugs. In fact, taxpayers are footing a significant portion of the R&D bill, which is much lower than the companies claim.

[1] “Amazon Research and Development Expense (Quarterly)”
➥ https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/r_and_d_expense

[2] “R&D Costs For Pharmaceutical Companies Do Not Explain Elevated US Drug Prices” ~ by Nancy L. Yu, Zachary Helms & Peter B. Bach
➥ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10....7.059036/full/

[3] “Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry’s R&D “Scare Card”
➥ https://www.citizen.org/article/rx-r...rd-scare-card/

Further reading:

“Pharmaceutical Marketing and Research Spending:The Evidence Does Not Support PhRMA’s Claims” ~ by Deborah Socolar, MPH, and Alan Sager, PhD [2001]
➥ https://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2015/05...-21-Oct-01.pdf

“Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research”
➥ https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=ca

“9 of 10 top drugmakers spend more on marketing than research”
➥ https://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/801869...ch-advertising

“Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits”
➥ https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223

"Should Big Pharma spend more on marketing than R&D?"
Nine out of 10 large pharma companies spend more on marketing than they do on R&D. It's a statistic often cited as a sign of industry greed, but it may be the best way to foster real innovation.
➥ https://medcitynews.com/2016/12/big-...eting-rd/?rf=1

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

For years pharmaceutical companies have featured in the list of the top profit making companies, claiming that the industry needs extraordinary profits, to fund risky and innovative research and development (R&D), for new drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies claim to develop new drugs, to treat new diseases, through research and development (R&D) investment, to create a next-generation profit source, or develop relatively cost-effective drugs to maximize enterprise value.

Drug companies tend to say they are unique in needing to spend a higher proportion of their capital on research, than almost any other industry.
But of all the companies in the world, the one that invests the most in research and development is not a drug company. It’s Amazon [1]. The online retailer spends about $20 billion a year on R&D, despite being renowned for both low prices and low profit margins [< 5%].

The most telling data [2] on a disconnect between drug prices and research costs has received almost no public attention. Peter Bach, a researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and his colleagues compared prices of the top 20 best-selling drugs in the United States to the prices in Europe and Canada.
They found that the cumulative revenue from the price difference on just these 20 drugs more than covers all the drug research and development costs conducted by the 15 drug companies that make those drugs—and then some.
To be more precise, after accounting for the costs of all research—about $80 billion a year—drug companies had $40 billion more from the top 20 drugs alone, all of which went straight to profits, not research. More excess profit comes from the next 100 or 200 brand-name drugs.

The pharmaceutical industry spends about one-fifth of what it says it spends, on the research and development (R&D) of new drugs, destroying the chief argument it uses against making prescription drugs affordable to middle and low-income seniors, a Public Citizen investigation has found.
The findings are contained in a Public Citizen report, "Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry’s R&D Scare Card" [3].
The report reveals how major U.S. drug companies and their Washington lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), have carried out a misleading campaign to scare policymakers and the public.
PhRMA’s central claim is that the industry needs extraordinary profits to fund “risky” and innovative research and development to discover new drugs. In fact, taxpayers are footing a significant portion of the R&D bill, which is much lower than the companies claim.

[1] “Amazon Research and Development Expense (Quarterly)”
➥ https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/r_and_d_expense

[2] “R&D Costs For Pharmaceutical Companies Do Not Explain Elevated US Drug Prices” ~ by Nancy L. Yu, Zachary Helms & Peter B. Bach
➥ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10....7.059036/full/

[3] “Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry’s R&D “Scare Card”
➥ https://www.citizen.org/article/rx-r...rd-scare-card/

Further reading:

“Pharmaceutical Marketing and Research Spending:The Evidence Does Not Support PhRMA’s Claims” ~ by Deborah Socolar, MPH, and Alan Sager, PhD [2001]
➥ https://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2015/05...-21-Oct-01.pdf

“Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research”
➥ https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=ca

“9 of 10 top drugmakers spend more on marketing than research”
➥ https://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/801869...ch-advertising

“Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits”
➥ https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223

"Should Big Pharma spend more on marketing than R&D?"
Nine out of 10 large pharma companies spend more on marketing than they do on R&D. It's a statistic often cited as a sign of industry greed, but it may be the best way to foster real innovation.
➥ https://medcitynews.com/2016/12/big-...eting-rd/?rf=1

This is all only half true.

First of all, the comparison with Amazon's R&D budget in absolute dollars is completely spurious -- annual turnover is nearly half a TRILLION dollars. Their R&D budget as a percentage of revenue is tiny compared to pharma companies.

Whether they spend more on marketing or not is also irrelevant. Marketing makes up a big share of expenses in most industries.

It is fundamentally true that pharma companies do spend a great deal of time and money developing drugs, most of which don't work out. Whether they exaggerate this in their proganda or not, doesn't justify falsely denying that this exists. Objectively speaking, developing new drugs -- and R&D is only one of the costs associated with this -- is a highly risky activity. High risk needs high reward if we want the activity to take place. This is a simple fact in market economies.

However, making a decent profit -- which means making a big profit on the rare very successful drug -- is not the same as price gouging, and this takes place in pharma as with all of medicine in North America. This is a real problem which does need to be addressed somehow.

So the truth is somewhere in between the way it's represented in the Big Pharma propaganda stuff, on the one hand, and all this fundamentally anti-capitalist propaganda against Big Pharma, on the other.

Some reform directed at Big Pharma is needed. But at this particular historical moment, given the way in which Big Pharma has just worked miracles with all that technology and capacity developed on the back of those profits, and has saved mankind from this awful pandemic, I think it's kind of churlish to focus on the negative. If this pandemic had happened 50 years ago, we would be in a very very different position than we are now. Thanks to -- Big Pharma's incredible capacity for developing, manufacturing, and rolling out gigantic quantities of new vaccines.

[Seaworthy Lass]

It is the first day of spring in the northern hemisphere. Naturalised crocuses and jonquils are bursting into life in our region. Puddles that were frozen not long ago are now teaming with tadpoles .

It is especially good to see that the expected drop in COVID-19 deaths has occurred in the UK (and cases also, despite the B117 variant predominating). Both are roughly 10% of their peak early in January. Given that numbers for deaths are based on the date reported, and there is a lag of up to several weeks, the actual daily numbers are likely to be far less than shown below:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...inations-today

Over 30% of the population has now been vaccinated. Tackling the 60-65 age group has commenced.

Although stay-at-home restrictions are not easing significantly for another 5 weeks, things are looking up here .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

It is the first day of spring in the northern hemisphere. Naturalised crocuses and jonquils are bursting into life in our region. Puddles that were frozen not long ago are now teaming with tadpoles .

It is especially good to see that the expected drop in COVID-19 deaths has occurred in the UK (and cases also, despite the B117 variant predominating). Both are roughly 10% of their peak early in January. Given that numbers for deaths are based on the date reported, and there is a lag of up to several weeks, the actual daily numbers are likely to be far less than shown below:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...inations-today

Over 30% of the population has now been vaccinated. Tackling the 60-65 age group has commenced.

Although stay-at-home restrictions are not easing significantly for another 5 weeks, things are looking up here .

Fantastic news from the UK. Thank God.

I can't say it looks so good here. Finland has broken 100 daily cases per million for the first time and people are freaking out a little. Sweden is going the wrong way, with daily cases back up to nearly 400. Latvia has been doing slowly better and better but still over 350. Estonia having a terrible outbreak, pushing 900. Norway going the wrong way -- still under 100, but rising. Denmark, which was doing so well after a terrible outbreak in the autumn, now drifting back up towards 100.





And NONE of these places has vaccinated a significant number of people. Neither Germany nor Sweden has even cracked a 0.2% daily vaccination rate (compare to nearly 0.7% in the UK and over 0.5% in the U.S.). Norway and Finland doing only slightly better; only Denmark stands out and even Denmark is only vaccinating 0.3% of the population every day.

The problem is supply, because the EU made a hash out of procurement. The Germans are negotiating with the Russians to acquire some Sputnik V; Hungary and Czechia are already receiving it. I hope Finland will be next -- apparently the Russians are producing gigantic quantities of Sputnik V such that they don't even know what to do with it. Send some here!