scholarly journals COVID-19 Vaccines as Global Common Goods: An Integrated Approach of Ethical, Economic Policy and Intellectual Property Management

Global Jurist ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nerina Boschiero

Abstract The article deals with the current debate about COVID-19 Vaccines as global public/common goods. After a brief introduction on the global epidemiological and economic implication of the pandemic, the problem of the correct characterization of either vaccine or immunization/herd immunity as global public/common good, according to the necessary characteristics outlined by the pertinent economic theories, is addressed. The conclusion is that the term “global public good”/global common goods” has been extensively used in the last two years by policy makers, political leaders, academics, economists, international organizations, NGOs and others health groups, in a sort of “loose way”. Substantially, in order to underscore that equitable access to health products, including vaccines, health and biomedical technologies, medical services, medical devises, whose availability, accessibility, acceptability, affordability to the world is fundamental to tackling the pandemic. The current legal proprietary regime applied to vaccines, extensively covered by IPRs, has transformed an intrinsically non-excludable common/public good (the vaccines, due to their nature and characteristics) in something excludable and rival in consumption. Consequently, the article argues that what is needed is a swift in their legal governance. The current legal discipline of vaccines and health technologies must be changed to bring it into line with the non-excludable nature of these goods. The richest countries in the world, in pursuit of their “vaccine nationalisms”, have already collectively preordered 8.8 billion doses of vaccine, far in excess of need, thus obliging billions of people in the Global South to wait years to be vaccinated. In this respect, the article investigates the EU vaccines strategy and analyzes the Advanced Purchase Agreements signed by the European Commission with the major vaccine producers, enlightening the untenable secrecy and opacity with which the European Union’s executive has handled COVID-19 vaccine supply contracts, and how it has simply paid no more than lip-service to the concept of global common/public good by attributing a broad “private governance” to the pharmaceutical companies. Then, the various arguments, for and against, the Waiver Proposal to several sections of the WTO TRIPS agreement, introduced by India and South Africa on the TRIPS Council on October 2020, have been briefly summarized, accounting the current luck of needed consensus among the various members of the WTO. The article however describes an important number of new global and collaborative efforts already put in place by a myriad public and private actors to allow efficient development and production of vaccines in order to enhance a global access to vaccines. The article concludes by stressing the major developments in the U.S. patent’s landscape and in the Biden Administration’s attitude towards the current global health crisis, that leave hope for “extraordinary measures” to be agreed by the international community in near future. The auspice is that the time has finally arrived for the international community to develop reliable and long term solutions to tackle future global pandemic, preferably by the negotiation of a new WHO global health treaty, to secure universal fair access to essential technologies and vaccines and protecting them as global public/common goods.

Author(s):  
Sandro Galea

In a few short months, COVID-19 devastated the world and, in particular, the United States. Yet America was already in poor health before COVID-19 appeared. Racism, marginalization, socioeconomic inequality—the failure to address these forces left America vulnerable to COVID-19 and the ensuing global health crisis it became. This book articulates the foundational forces shaping health in American society and how they can be strengthened to prevent the next outbreak from becoming a pandemic. Because while no one could have predicted that a pandemic would strike when it did, we did know that a pandemic would strike, sooner or later. The book challenges Americans to tackle the deep-rooted obstacles preventing them from becoming a truly vibrant and equitable nation, reminding them of what they seemed to have forgotten: that health is a public good worth protecting.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 300-305
Author(s):  
Sumbal Javed ◽  
Vijay Kumar Chattu

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to claim lives around the world and, to some extent, reflects the failure of international cooperation. Global health diplomacy (GHD)can be a bridge for international cooperation for tackling public health crises, strengthening health systems through emphasizing universal health coverage for sustainable and equitable development, and rebuilding multilateral organizations. It can be a catalyst for future global health initiatives. Health should not be used as a political tool at the cost of people’s lives, nor should it become a proxy for geopolitics but can be used to diffuse tensions and create a positive environment for political dialogue. Health diplomacy’s focus should be to mitigate inequality by making available diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines as a global public good. The implications for the lack of international cooperation will lead to increased global disparities and inequities as the countries that cannot procure vaccines will find their population more vulnerable to the pandemic’s repercussion. Though the international cooperation on trade has suffered the impact of geopolitical shifts and competition, through engaging in GHD, the governments can align the trade and health policies. Amid this global health crisis, the World Health Organization (WHO) has faced an increase in International Health Regulations violations, limiting its influence and response during this COVID-19 pandemic. Nations need to develop a sense of cooperation that serves as the basis for a mutual strategic trust for international development. The priorities of all the countries should be to find the areas of common interest, common operational overlap on development issues, and resource allocation for this global fight against COVID-19.


Author(s):  
Ken Hyland ◽  
Feng (Kevin) Jiang

Abstract Covid-19, the greatest global health crisis for a century, brought a new immediacy and urgency to international bio-medical research. The pandemic generated intense competition to produce a vaccine and contain the virus, creating what the World Health Organization referred to as an ‘infodemic’ of published output. In this frantic atmosphere, researchers were keen to get their research noticed. In this paper, we explore whether this enthusiasm influenced the rhetorical presentation of research and encouraged scientists to “sell” their studies. Examining a corpus of the most highly cited SCI articles on the virus published in the first seven months of 2020, we explore authors’ use of hyperbolic and promotional language to boost aspects of their research. Our results show a significant increase in hype to stress certainty, contribution, novelty and potential, especially regarding research methods, outcomes and primacy. Our study sheds light on scientific persuasion at a time of intense social anxiety.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Vilbert

The COVID-19 has renovated the debate about global health governance. A number of scholars have proposed that the World Health Organization should assume the position of a central coordinator with hierarchical powers, demanding nation-states to “share their sovereignty”. This article presents four main objections to this project. First, when international institutions receive leverage, they use to impose “one-size-fits-all” policies, which conflicts with the characteristic heterogeny across countries. Second, geopolitical questions and the distribution of power in multilateral institutions put developing countries in a position of vulnerability within a hierarchical order. Third, the risk of crowding out parallel initiatives, especially from non-state actors. Fourth, decisions about health can have a major impact on countries, which may thwart the internal democratic principle. A Pareto improvement would be possible by strengthening the WHO’s operational capacity and its ability to issue technical guidance and coordinate with countries. To test this hypothesis, this study analyses the possible influence of the WHO’s guidance in the first year of the coronavirus health crisis, from January 2020 to January 2021, in 37 countries reported in the World Values Survey Wave 7 (2017-2020). The OLS regression performed shows a statistically significant negative relationship between the trust in the WHO, assumed as a proxy for the level of the organization's penetration, and the number of cases of COVID-19 (per million people) in the countries of the sample. These findings reinforce the hypothesis that there is a valid case for the countries to strengthen the WHO’s mandate post-COVID-19, but they should enhance the operations of provision of reliable information and support. Nation-states, in particular the developing ones, should eschew the temptation to create a hierarchical global health structure, which may not only fail due to countries’ asymmetries but is likely to create losers in the process.


Author(s):  
Diane Ashiru-Oredope ◽  
◽  
Amy Hai Yan Chan ◽  
Omotayo Olaoye ◽  
Victoria Rutter ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The declaration of COVID-19 a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020 marked the beginning of a global health crisis of an unprecedented nature and scale. The approach taken by countries across the world varied widely, however, the delivery of frontline healthcare was consistently recognised as being central to the pandemic response. This study aimed to identify and explore the issues currently facing pharmacy teams across Commonwealth countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also evaluates pharmacy professionals’ understanding of key knowledge areas from the COVID-19 webinar hosted by the Commonwealth Pharmacists’ Association (CPA). Method A quantitative survey-based approach was adopted, using a 32-item questionnaire developed from the literature on pharmacy and pandemic response. The survey was hosted on Survey Monkey and pilot tested. The final survey was disseminated by CPA member organisations. A 6-item online questionnaire was sent via email to all attendees of CPA's COVID-19 webinar. Descriptive statistics on frequency distributions and percentages were used to analyse the responses. Data were analysed using Microsoft® Excel (2010). Results There were 545 responses from pharmacy professionals across 31/54 Commonwealth countries in Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe and the Pacific. Majority of the respondents reported being at least somewhat worried (90%) and more than 65% were very worried or extremely about the impact of COVID-19 on them personally and professionally. Nearly two-thirds of respondents stated finding it somewhat difficult or very difficult to work effectively during the pandemic. Challenges mostly faced by pharmacy professionals working remotely included; general anxiety about the impact of COVID-19 on their lives (12%), and difficulties in communicating with their co-workers (12%). Most pharmacy professionals had not previously been actively involved in a global health emergency (82%) nor obtained training on global/public health emergency preparedness (62%). Between 45 and 97% of the COVID-19 webinar attendees provided the correct answers to post-webinar questions, suggesting some improvement in knowledge. Conclusion Our study confirms pharmacy professionals’ concerns about practice during a pandemic and provides preliminary data on the challenges and learning needs of the profession. The CPA has since acted on these findings, providing ongoing opportunities to develop and refine resources for the profession as the pandemic evolves. Pharmacy professionals have also demonstrated improved knowledge on the management of COVID-19 and resources available for professionals.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadja Meisterhans

Blaming the World Health Organization (who) for its failures in the Ebola crisis was a common reaction of the media. However, exclusively denouncing the who for the spread of Ebola falls short as it does not recognize the structural deficits of those recent governance procedures financing global health that lead to a chronic underfunding of the who. Against this background, the article reflects perspectives of a democratic reform of global health funding. It concludes that only the who can provide a leadership on global health matters, but to do so it depends on states willing to rebuild the who’s capacities to act. To address the global health crisis properly, the revitalization of who’s constitutional mandate is critically necessary. The discussion is based on normative legal theory, which argues that processes of globalization have transformed international law into a global rule of law, placing specific duties on states and international institutions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. p14
Author(s):  
Jan-Erik Lane

The UN Climate Change Conference COP 25 is a huge international reunion to attempt to enact with unanimity policies that counteract global warming or its effects. Can such really overcome the difficult problematic of collective action inherent in providing global public good? The Global Environmental Process runs meeting after meeting-no results. The global thermometer keeps rising, as Co2s do not decrease. The first manifestations of Hawking’s irreversible change have appeared around the world. Only one major non-incremental policy would make a difference: close down coal power.


10.28945/4755 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 291-317
Author(s):  
Basil Cahusac de Caux

Aim/Purpose: To date, few studies have investigated the impact of global health crises on the academic writing of doctoral candidates. This paper seeks to start a conversation about the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on doctoral candidates’ academic writing output and strategies. Background: This paper employs and analyses data elicited from surveys and interviews involving doctoral candidates from around the world. Data were collected during April 2020, at a time when government-mandated lockdowns and restrictions on movement were in full force in many countries around the world. Methodology: Surveys were conducted with 118 doctoral candidates from over 40 institutions based in four continents. Follow-up interviews were carried out with four doctoral candidates enrolled in an Australian institution. A qualitative descriptive design, employing thematic analysis, is used to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctoral candidates’ writing output and strategies. The data analysis includes statistical descriptions of the surveys. Contribution: This paper provides insights into the myriad challenges and obstacles facing doctoral candidates during the COVID-19 pandemic. It describes the writing strategies adopted by doctoral candidates during a period of significant societal disruption, and illustrates how thematic analysis can be employed in research involving global health crises. Findings: Despite the adoption of novel approaches to academic writing, which appear in an insignificant minority of respondents, doctoral candidates’ overall commitment to academic writing has been negatively impacted by the pandemic. Similarly, delays to academic research activities caused by the pandemic have resulted in a significant decline in commitment (motivation) to academic writing and a substantial impact on doctoral candidates’ ability to write about their research. Recommendations for Practitioners: Supervisors and mentors should strive to provide doctoral candidates with timely feedback during the pandemic. Given the impact of the pandemic on doctoral candidates’ mental health and motivation to write, increased institutional and peer support is required to help doctoral candidates overcome academic issues during the pandemic and future health crises. This researcher recommends consulting regularly with and offering individually tailored solutions to doctoral candidates who are struggling to work on their theses during the pandemic. Similarly, institutions should empower supervisors in ways that allow them to provide greater levels of support to doctoral candidates. Recommendation for Researchers: Further research on the impacts of the pandemic on various academic cohorts, such as early career researchers (doctoral candidates, postdoctoral researchers, and assistant professors) and student cohorts (e.g., undergraduate and postgraduate), will clarify the extent to which the pandemic is impacting the academic writing of doctoral candidates. Impact on Society: The pressure placed on doctoral candidates to produce quality academic writing seems to have been heightened by the pandemic. This has a range of adverse effects for the higher education sector, particularly administrators responsible for managing doctoral candidate success and the academe, which recruits many of its faculty from holders of doctorate degrees. Future Research: Additional focus on academic writing of doctoral candidates during the pandemic is needed. Research should include randomised samples and represent a range of academic disciplines.


SINOPSE Este artigo tem como objetivo analisar os impactos iniciais da Covid-19 nos mercados globais de petróleo. A atual conjuntura possui a particularidade de apresentar alterações de mercado tanto na demanda, por efeitos das medidas de contenção da crise sanitária global, quanto na oferta, como resultado das disputas entre grandes produtores de petróleo, em particular Arábia Saudita e Rússia. Considera-se que os efeitos da pandemia podem resultar em profundas transformações para o setor petrolífero e a economia mundial, a depender da duração e dos desdobramentos da crise. ABSTRACT This article analyzes the initial impacts of Covid-19 on global oil markets. The current situation has the particularity of presenting market changes both in demand, due to the measures to contain the global health crisis, and in supply, as a result of the disputes between large oil producers, in particular Saudi Arabia and Russia. It is considered that the effects of the pandemic may result in profound changes for the oil sector and the world economy, depending on the duration and developments of the crisis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document