Beginning a new thread on the #TRIPSwaiver; I'll start by collating previous threads. And then get down to details / developments as and when although there isn't a chance it'll be comprehensive and it could be inaccurate.

This is where we are now:

(Image: @MSF_uk)

The US recently voiced support for the #TRIPSwaiver which AUS called "tremendous news" though neither AUS itself, much less holdouts in Europe, followed suit. Canada too still hasn't made up its mind.

It is not just a patent waiver. https://twitter.com/nsaikia/status/1385636875650572289?s=19

Not only has no-one claimed that patent waivers are all it will take to achieve vaccine equity, no-one has claimed that the #TRIPSwaiver will, by itself, do the job.

No-one has said that any one approach alone will work. https://twitter.com/nsaikia/status/1389106190265708548?s=19

Ensuring vaccine equity cannot be achieved solely through domestic means simply because published patent specifications are inadequate to realise production.

They need tech transfers opposed by many who, no surprise, also seem to oppose the #TRIPSwaiver.

Some of the arguments against the #TRIPSwaiver are perfectly sound. Or diversionary gaslighting depending on your point of view.

Releasing excess vaccine stocks would be better than the waiver for immediate effect, eg. 100% true. But it doesn't obviate the need for the waiver.

Not everyone has published their procurement contracts but it looks like at least some of these contracts prohibit vaccines from being simply given away across national borders — a clause pharma companies may want to limit liability. That would explain reports of vaccine loans.

If even some of the excess stocks of vaccines can only be loaned, that immediately causes the question of how those stocks will be replenished without augmenting manufacturing capacity to arise.

Amongst the hurdles to manufacturing... patents & trade secrets in the form of tech.