[ad_1]
48 hours and the climate of rebirth and European harmony of Vaccine day has already given way to controversy. And, worst of all, the delays in the administration of the serum that should help us regain the normality lost during the past year.
At the center of the dispute, the Germany decision buy another 30 million doses of Pfizer-Biontech vaccine, in addition to those decided at Community level and divided according to the demographic needs of the different Member States.
In conclusion, Berlin would have played dirty. Very true? No. For three reasons. First, Germany notified its partners of its decision on December 19. Nobody at that time had anything to object to. It so happens that the controversy has broken out after the first setbacks related to the day of the vaccine. And, in the Italian case, the unpleasant side represented by the political conflicts after the vaccination of the Governor of Campania, Vincenzo De Luca, and by casus belli relative to the high rate of medical-sanitary personnel who would not propose to lend themselves to the administration.
Secondly, since Germany is the current president of the Union until tomorrow and the president of the Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, is also a German national, Berlin has awaited the general decision between the states before implementing its vaccination doses. . Given also the continuous worsening of the domestic front of the pandemic, so much so that it has already heralded the possibility of an extension of the current regime hard lock even after january 10.
Being Biontech a German company benefiting from state subsidies, pushing for more dose buying by the whole of Europe would certainly have awakened the anti-German instincts of some EU critics, willing to point the finger at the scarlet letter of the conflict of interests. Berlin therefore closed the common contract at the point of a shared decision and then rightly considered it prudently wise to go for a larger amount.
Applause, nothing but criticism. Third, always Germany, in this case, especially the press. Spiegel In his head – since the end of November he had pointed out that it was a mistake to divide the purchase commissions too much between the different pharmaceutical companies, simply because in practice only the vaccine Pfizer and Biontech offered serious guarantees in terms of authorizations, deliveries and almost immediate availability .
Here, however, that the EU has decided to target Plug heavier than hand AstraZeneca and Sanofi, preferred to the German-American competitor due to the small criticalities related to the transport of vaccines in reference to the storage temperature and the consequent “cold chain”. That said, Sanofi appears decidedly late and EMA, the European pharmaceutical authority called in to give vaccines the green light, has just announced that the AstraZeneca serum, on which Italy has focused the most, it will hardly get authorization for use in January.
In short, as much as attacking Germany is a national sport, it is enough to connect the factual dots as in the game of Puzzle week to realize that in Berlin there is very little to blame. If it is not the pension, if it is considered a default.
And that Germany knew what he was saying, when on tiptoe it advanced its reservations – always contained in forms and times, for fear of the accusation of conflict of interest – is demonstrated by the fact that, at the end of November, when the fever of the Vaccines ignited the stock markets, after Pfizer’s announcement of US FDA clearance at the door, Goldman Sachs published a report that lined up all those critical issues. It was enough to read it. Or, perhaps, at least be aware of its existence.
Goldman sachs
As this first graph shows, the US investment bank had divided the market supply for the various vaccines being tested / licensed, trying to understand for how long that amount of potential supply might have ensured optimal coverage for The world population. .
The imbalance with respect to AstraZeneca, as well as that of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the first to suffer a forced cessation of testing due to the appearance of abnormal reactions in patients undergoing administration, seems evident. Sanofi, precisely by virtue of its backwardness in the face of the competition, is not even considered in the Goldman Sachs study and, to this day, the French company itself speaks openly of at least the month of May for the authorized landing of its product.
In conclusion, the bankers had already felt the criticality not too latent, politics is not. Perhaps because the former need a healthy realism to decide which of the pharmaceutical actions that drive the turbo relied on something that was not solely attributable to the so-called vaccine euphoria. And, therefore, it does not deflate once it enters the implementation phase, as this other graphic shows:
Bloomberg
because if hope is a formidable dynamo for climbs, allergic reactions, lags and virus variants do not prove in favor of an uncritical rally. But that is not enough. Why these other two charts:
Goldman sachs
Goldman sachs
show how Goldman Sachs, long before the current controversy, had a clear idea of what the forward-looking framework was. FirstFrom the beginning, investment banks set the credible time goal for the European Union to vaccinate 50% of its inhabitants against Covid around the first ten days of June, a figure clearly delayed compared to the estimated end of February for the UK and / or the first 10 days of April for the US All based on projections made by analysts that were based solely on known and public metrics. That is, data provided by pharmaceutical companies on the availability and time of approval of serum and the current logistics of the different health systems called to carry out mass vaccination.
And also the question of the potential rate of objectors to the vaccine, a very important variable since it is decisive with respect to the synchronization The achievement of said coverage that guarantees collective immunity, was known since the end of November with its critical baggage. Given that if in emerging countries the main obstacle to effective immunization of the population lies on the supply side of pharmaceutical companies, in developed countries the exact opposite occurs: that is, Goldman was already pricing at an insufficient demand rate in certain countries, as much as to factor it and put a price on its projections of reaching 50% coverage. And although the New York investment bank has always represented aelite absolute in their field, it seems daunting as governments and scientific committees to this I have not paid attention to these impending criticalities, at least in the final act of reserving vaccine doses in the EU and in the choice of suppliers based on the basic criteria of immediate availability.
Of course, blaming Germany now offers an alibi and scapegoat out of the box and with a strong connotation of attraction to I like it on social media but reality seems stubborn. And as the days go by, if accompanied by an accumulated bankruptcy of delays and inconveniences, it could erase even the narratives of convenience.
Because the success of the vaccination campaign It is not only linked to the sacrosanct higher good of citizens’ health, but also to the speed and sustainability of economic recovery. And in Germany, although with delay but starting from macro bases to superior to ours, they understood it. Acting accordingly.
