https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4716
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-if-he-will-profit-from-moderna-covid-vaccine
There is a lot of chattering about politicians in various countries and their links to shares in vaccines companies. It looks iffy at the very least.
As I say, treatments would appear to be being ignored in favour of vaccines. I know that prevention is better than cure as the saying goes, but when the disease is not very dangerous, a cure doesn't make money as hardly anyone needs it. Prevention in the form of a vaccine can be much profitable as you can give it to everyone, regardless of need.
I think there is a general misconception between drug treatments and vaccine use particularity for antiviral treatment.
Unlike antibacterial tablets, anti viral drugs are usually only partially effective, and have to be taken early on to have any effect. Which in the case of Covid would mean relying on early diagnostic tests, as symptoms tend to emerge late in this disease. The only true cure for Covid is monoclonal antibody treatment, and these cost ca $100,000 a time.
Vaccine treatments are very cost effective on a per person basis, which is why governments globally use them so extensively, even in the poorest countries. The AZ vaccine is about £5 a shot. Pfizer is one of the more costly at ca £25. In drugs companies usually don't make a profit from epidemic vaccines, its high risk R&D business and its use is likely to be for a short duration. Covid being an exception in being very widespread and long lasting and even with Covid, only a handful of drug companies will make money - notably Pfizer. In the Sars, Ebola epidemics the drug makers lost money - its usually part of their corporate social responsibility to respond to epidemics.
Cheap medicines offered as a prophylactic will cost more than a vaccine over the patients lifetime - antimalarials for instance, a vaccine would vastly reduce the drug and medical cost. The (as yet) unproved drug ivermectin would cost £60 per year as a prophylactic and its one of the cheapest. The other consideration is drug safety when taking drugs on this vast scale. Vaccines registration demands very high levels of safety and efficacy as they are taken by otherwise healthy people. The is not the case with drug treatments. Most anti-viral drugs have side effects, some quite severe and are far more of a hazard than a vaccine. Another issue is treatment usually means hospitalisation or medical supervision, which add to the cost - although not visibly in the UK.
The other huge benefit of vaccination is that it instills a herd immunity in a population which protects those who cannot or will not take a vaccine. Whereas drug treatment can only supress infection - malaria being an example.
Your statement that 'when a disease is not very dangerous, a cure doesn't make money as hardly anyone needs it' is not borne out by the reality of the drugs industry - an industry I've been involved with for 30years. Money is made from chronic long term 'non-dangerous' diseases in which case the patient suffers and so wants curing, but doesn't die so hangs around taking the drug. Just look at the market for cough and cold remedies, and the side effects of obesity epidemic such as diabetes and hypertension . On the contrary, drugs companies find epidemics hard to make money from, as they are dangerous enough to require a response but as mentioned before they usually don't last long enough to get a return on investment. Most drug companies approach epidemics as a 'good citizen' thing to do and occasionally get lucky and make money.
Looking through the two articles, Guardian and BMJ, the journalists are doing their job in questioning peoples motivation, but in both cases I think these are rather thin allegations. Guardian: the sad fact is that maga-rich people like Sunak will make money on any development as they have investments in most major business sectors. However in this case, its clear that the governments decision was to spread bet on vaccine supply and Moderna's was one of the smallest contracts (until the vaccines efficacy was proven), and it still a small order, relative to others, and in line with other countries ordering pattern. Also they are not even sure if he still has shares in Moderna since he left his city job in 2013. So, OK investigative journalism, but no smoking gun.
The BMJ seems similarly unconcerning, its a fact that sage is populated by volunteer professionals as are its numerous subcommittees, so they all have full time jobs in their respective professions (mainly academics), and so potentially conflicted, in fact that's true of most very senior people in all walks of life as they tend to be called upon to be advisors . They key thing (and this article is pushing for it) is to know who they are, so that its a transparent process. Its hard to see people manipulating Sage to their personal advantage. It has 87 members all of whom are there because they can hold their arguments and point of view to tough scrutiny. Sage is the peak of a body of sub committees, Spy-I and B, Modeling, social care, minorities, NHS and hospital sub-committees. Its distilling input from several hundred people. In my view it kind of polices itself from its very diversity. There maybe a 'professional mindset bias' but from what I've seen they seem to be influenced by the data as it has unfolded.
