Global Justice Manchester

charity

Who are COVAX, Gavi and Cepi?

by

To judge from some press releases, the vaccine needs of the world’s poor are being met by COVAX, Gavi and Cepi, but behind swish websites who are they?

The World Health Organisation’s COVAX program “working for global equitable access” trumpets “With a fast-moving pandemic, no one is safe, unless everyone is safe”.

However it is perhaps telling that the WEF last September described it thus:

  • COVAX aims to ensure all countries have access to a safe, effective vaccine.
  • Richer countries gain access to a portfolio of potential vaccines, avoiding the risk of
    backing any one candidate.
  • Lower income countries get financial support and equal access to a vaccine once
    available. (My italics!)

Hmmmm….. Charity, not equality!

Co-led by Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the WHO, the scheme is a partnership with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and UNICEF.

CEPI describes itself as another “…global partnership between public, private, philanthropic, and civil society organisations”. It was launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos four years ago and attracted funds for research from governments and trusts. Established in the wake of the Ebola epidemic where there had been competition for access to vaccine, CEPI originally demanded affordable pricing of vaccines, transparency and sharing of data from all those who had benefitted from its funds.

However, under pressure from pharmaceutical corporations (primarily Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, but with unnamed parties threatening non-cooperation), these policies were ditched in 2018 bringing protest from Médecins Sans Frontières.

Gavi, (officially “Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance”, originally the “Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization”) was established in 2000. It is co-chaired by Bill Gates, and claims to have already helped vaccinate 822m children in the world’s poorest countries against other diseases. It asserts: “…Gavi pools country demand, guarantees long-term, predictable funding and brings down prices”.

Laudable, but a decade ago it was likewise criticised by MSF for failing to push down prices and favouring new drugs rather than simpler health approaches. We thus see self-acknowledged public-private partnerships, supporting the political-economic status quo, with a high degree of effective control over access to pharmaceuticals by poor people and perhaps promoting a dependency modus operandi.

This may be unfair. It must be acknowledged that the Gates Foundation has funded the survival of many thousands of children. But it appears not to have supported a revolution or challenge to neo-colonial “pharmocracy”.

Gates’ humanitarian vision is impressive and has been communicated to millions; but it’s technological rather than political. Give this a couple of minutes and see if you agree.

I wonder what would happen were Melinda to wake up Bill one night and say: “Hey, Honey, I’ve been thinking about Microsoft’s mission statement- ‘empower every person and every organisation on the planet to achieve more’; let’s!”

— Stephen Pennells

Learn more about vaccine availability

Why pandemics need global justice (rather than simply charity)

by

Of course wealth disparities have multiple causes, but one of the causes in the current pandemic clearly is vaccine nationalism.

It’s accepted that a (the?) primary responsibility of governments is to protect their populations, but rich countries in the global North have used their high credit standing to enable them not only to domestic largesse but also in panic buying of not yet produced vaccines. They have hedged their bets with vast over-ordering, depriving others of the chance to get materials from producers. Canada is said to have bought five times as much vaccine as it needs; meanwhile the Mirror reports the UK having ordered 407m doses– for a population of 68m.

One.org suggested in February more equity should be achieved by radical sharing and called for it at the G7 meeting.

This didn’t happen and the subsequent shipment of AstraZeneca vaccine to Australia reflects European “business as usual” attitudes; production difficulties meant AZ hadn’t been able to fulfil its contract with the EU and Italy leapt in to retain stock due for export.

Vaccine Apartheid

In South Africa many remember the deaths of millions of AIDS suffers in the 90s whilst drug companies sat on ARV patents and incompetent governments failed to intervene. Seeing a repeating situation and with the consciousness of Black Lives Matter the term #VaccineApartheid has been coined. This is painfully obvious there with even the Oxford AstraZeneca treatment costing twice the UK price.

Whilst AZ have pledged to hold prices to “at cost” for low income countries, the Serum Institute of India which has produced under license was not so regulated.

Added to this posturing for domestic audiences there have been daily stories about squabbles and bickering over the efficacy of different treatments.

Vaccine Diplomacy – Vaccine War

The provision of Vaccines has been identified as a new form of diplomacy and spreading soft power. This is seen positively by former Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and was recently exemplified on Radio 4’s Westminster Hour (Sun. 28 March ).

Russia and China are seen as stealing a march on the West with sacrificial donations in key locations (e.g. the Balkans and Ethiopia) where they may hope to reestablish influence lost in recent years. It’s possible some of the stop-go confusion about vaccine efficacy and safety has been fermented to further geopolitical influence.

Things seem to be hotting up. Six months ago Microsoft reported Russian and North Korean hacking of “health care organisations”. Reuters also reported North Korean attacks on AstraZeneca. More recently the agency reported Chinese state hackers attacking the IT systems of the Serum Institute of India and another company, assertions denied by the Chinese government.

A Vaccine Peace Treaty?

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the WHO who in January called vaccine inequality “a catastrophic moral failure” on 30 March called for a international health treaty to promote pandemic preparedness. Johnson, Merkel and Macron support this. But the text does not fundamentally challenge the current structures and modus operandi.

These structures and praxes are clearly not meeting the need to protect the global population as quickly or as equitably as could be achieved.

The result of this is the nullification of many years of economic and development progress along with social liberation. As usual those communities and individuals without the dollars to cushion them are pushed to the back of the queue or invited to accrue future obligations and mindsets.

Of course charity is welcome when it saves lives. But in the current situation it seems people facing pandemics need a deal that takes account of their situation and needs, rather than simply relying on the charity of others which may or may not be delivered.

We are currently seeing the unreliability of external help, be it indirectly through UK research, directly through Overseas Development Aid or from cash-strapped NGOs.

Even the World Economic Forum is waking up to the inadequacies of the system and overtly and sympathetically referring to the demands of People’s Vaccine Alliance!

A new approach is needed:

Solidarity and Global Justice

To find out what this might entail come to the webinar on 14th. Apr.- visit tinyurl.com/peoplesvaccine

See Winnie Byanyima’s call for a people’s vaccine