What is the non-sinister argument for Oxford partnering with AstraZeneca on a non-profit basis, and with an exclusive contract, rather than allowing the technology to be used on a patent-free basis?
The best explanation I can deduce is that they needed a big drug company to help vaccine along production pipeline, and that no company would get involved without exclusivity. Is that it? And if so, would there have been a possible alternative route?
An additional question: Is there evidence that AZ are holding up production in the Global South? i.e. are there manufacturers desperate to get in on production but who aren't being granted licenses?
You can follow @michaeljswalker.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.