Vaccine Nationalism and Big Pharma in the World of COVID-19

The day was November 9th, 2020. Nearing the tragic anniversary since its first detection, the virus COVID-19 was showing little sign of easing. Cases of infection were on an upward trajectory worldwide, with a death toll climbing to 1.2 million. But that Monday afternoon, an announcement by drug maker Pfizer concerning an analysis of its coronavirus vaccine trial brought a new stamina to the fight. ‘More than 90 percent effective’ the headlines of every major news company read, hopes soaring and stocks surging-the S&P 500 gaining a whole 1.2 percent by the end of the day. Senior Vice president of Pfizer Kathrin Jansen declared it “a historical moment…we have embarked on a path and a goal that nobody ever has achieved-to come up with a vaccine within a year”. And while the rapid speed of the vaccine development process has been nothing short of a testament to human innovation and ingenuity, it has also opened a pandora’s box of profits, money politics and vaccine nationalism. For on the very same day the Pfizer announcement came out, another story was quietly circulating- the company’s CEO and chairman, Albert Bourla, had sold almost $5.6 million worth of the pharmaceutical company’s stock. And with that, the vaccine game had begun.

Since the deadly virus began its march in early spring, a nexus of scientists, politicians and pharmaceutical companies have drummed the beat for a workable vaccine. With currently 54 vaccines in the midst of clinical human trials, with 12 in the final stages of testing, the race for a Covid-19 treatment is in the making. Countries with the funds have channeled millions of dollars into various vaccine trials, China and Russia even beginning the administration of their own national vaccines. As more companies release news of their successful trials, Pfizer, Modern and most recently AstraZeneca heading the lead, the logistics of equitable distribution and administration are entering the discussion-with only so many doses available, let alone the question of transporting medicines requiring storage at minus 70 degrees Celsius, who will be the first in line to receive their immunisation?

The political economy behind infectious diseases and vaccine production has a long and deeply unsettling history. When the influenza virus H1N1, known as swine flu, hit the world in 2009, the UN amongst other IGOs were adamant in their appeal for international collaboration. At the start, many affluent states like the US, Brazil and France pledged to contribute 10 percent of their national stockpiles to aid those countries in lower-income statures. However, the allusion of multilateral collaboration did not last long; Facing sudden shortages in vaccination doses, countries like the United States backtracked on their promises as they internalised their operations. Again, a similar practice would be demonstrated in the treatment of the 2003 pandemic of H5N1, or avian flu. Historically speaking, it is always the richest of nations who escape the grips of any epidemic first. In a collaborative NGO report concerning the wealth gap and immunisation programmes, it was confirmed that a majority of unvaccinated children in the world currently live in conflict-affected or low-income states. Africa and South-east Asia are both home to nearly 80% (about 15 million) of unimmunised children worldwide, and these regions also account for the highest child mortality rates.

The potential for the COVID-19 pandemic to follow in these footsteps carries no surprise for David Fidler, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. For Fidler, the resurgence of nationalism in global epidemics is no anomaly, as he remarks, “I can’t think of a single time there has been a mechanism that has globally distributed vaccines or drugs on an equitable and accessible sharing basis”. To acquire the moniker of a vaccine superpower, wealthy nations have advanced vaccine trials at a frightening pace; The Russian government, in this wave of ‘me first’ health care nationalism, even bypassed its Phrase-3 trials in order to approve and market the national vaccine Sputnik-V. To further aggravate the situation, international institutions such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) have long been dismissed and underfunded by state powers. The formal withdrawal of the United States from WHO by President Donald Trump in late May, in response to China’s “total control over the World Health Organisation”, was a testament to this. In every sense of the word, as articulated by an American senator, “it leaves Americans sick and America alone”. Without an effective global body to regulate and monitor these vaccination processes, the survival of the pandemic will last

While some vaccine schemes have operated on the philosophy of accessibility, the Oxford group’s AstraZeneca seeking an ‘Emergency Use Listing’ from WHO, others are alarmingly marketised. In discussing the topic with a financial analyst, Guardian writer Stephen Buranyi was informed in late August that Modern’s mRNA vaccine could end up selling for more than $70 a dose worldwide. And the realities of such speculations are growing more concrete by the day. In a series of early lock-in arrangements, the European Union has already secured a deal with Pfizer for the purchase of 200 million doses, followed by the American contract for 100 million doses and Japan with 120 million doses. The other promising vaccine on the market, developed by the company Moderna, has made similar deals with the US, Canada and Qatar. The creation of COVAX, a multilateral initiative to ensure equitable distribution of the vaccine, is resolved to fill these gaps in the global vaccine supply chain. With a membership of 184 countries, groups like COVAX will be critical in transcending vaccine nationalism and forming a sense of solidarity between rich and poor countries alike. At the moment, however, the refusal of the US and Russia to join these groups has been highly disparaging to their success. With only 700 million doses guaranteed under this pooled global effort, the fate of cosmopolitanism is in the air.

The pharmaceutical industrial complex, known by many simply as big pharma, has been one of the greatest scandals to occur in the 21st century. Yet, when calls to regulate the health care sector are articulated by the public, by politicians or by international institutions, no one speaks back-promises are broken, reform all but forgotten. In its devastating wake, the coronavirus pandemic has also offered an out from these frays of violent capitalism and nationalism. A new order is possible, one which prioritises an international solidarity devoid of political gambles and addresses the all-consuming disparities caused by money and capital, or lack thereof; The CORVAX initiative is but one example of this. At the end of the day, this body of corporate mongering and government bogarting has a choice: Either remain pawns to the forces of the market or break the constraints of a greedy, zero-sum game. The choice, whatever it may be, will be answered as we navigate the vaccination regime over the next few months.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia, © 2020 some rights reserved