income countries, it's just point 35 percent. i think i would go one 3rd of that and say no, just that be what it is. as the school bus in a part of the world is in vice in about died. i bet there's all unwelcome as leaders around the world attempt to draw lessons from the coven, 1900 pandemic. one question remains notably unresolved how to handle vaccine payden's at present. it's only these companies and a select few. they have licensing agreements with that are allowed to make the jobs . it's a fundamental principle of intellectual property though, but one critic say is costing lives and slowing down efforts to end the pandemic. south africa and india have led calls to c. peyton's wavered more than $100.00 countries, including the united states. a great germany is a notable exception with a government coming out strongly against the proposal. so what are the arguments for and against?

proponent, se suspending would help economies reopen soon up. it would also save lives and point to the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. and the fact that pharma companies have benefited from state help that's out taxpayer money. of course, those against say it would hamper innovation slow future responses to future pandemic. they also argue the wave is wooden self production capacity issues and point out that some pharma companies are already selling their vaccines to poor countries at cost price. so is there a resolution to all this incite? i'm joined by elizabeth, my daughter. she's an advocacy official with doctors without orders and also by sandy douglas. he's a research group leader at jenny institute at the university of oxford. welcome to both of you. hello, elizabeth. if we can start with you, we got this vaccine in record time. would that have been possible without payments?

i would say yes, that would have been possible because the paste. the vaccines have not yet been protected by the payments in the past year. it takes about 18 months for this protection to start, and we saw that it wouldn't have been possible without the massive amount of public funding that has actually gone into the 16th. so yes, we say this could have been possible and therefore it should be a global public good because of all the public funding that had gone into the 16th, we'll get to the funding in a moment sandy, what do you think on peyton's, the tool that the drives innovation, i think in the case of our universe, i agree with elizabeth. would it be possible to develop this when i hastens, although it may have been called bring on board after that or another pharmaceutical company in the future in the product where they have some protection . what about all that state money though that visible? mentioned, shouldn't the state then have a say in how this is all dealt with?

yes, absolutely, and noble at the moment went back to being developed if that's funded by government funded by not for profit by the gate conversation or the which the call to prep paradise. and all of these organizations will attach conditions to funding, which in many cases will prioritize access below and middle income countries. so in the case of the ultimate, after that, i think the you had a very active site in what terms it was license dr. seneca on the, i'm with know, just text me. the interest was also i consideration of protecting access below middle income countries in that process. elizabeth, why is economic giant germany so against waving pain? well, as mentioned before, there are a lot of maxine producers and pharmaceutical companies. in germany who have the

interest of protecting their i. p rights. so they are patients for example, and biotech and cubic for example, to a martin a produces which have interest and patient seeing those. but i would say the strings attached to the public money. but for example, germany has also invested in biotech, for example, all the u. s. that invested nearly $1000000000.00 in more durn or for the r n. v. in the spec scenes, there were not enough strings attached to the 15th. we want to see effects of conditions for affordability access, and also tech transfer attached to these to these fundings, because also in the case of sappy the sandy mentioned just now, they were not strong enough conditioned as additions attached so that you could actually say that needs to be a tech transfer now from the different entities that actually receive their funding . so we would want in the future that this would be kept in mind. we're obviously talking about exceptional circumstances here, sending. let me check in with you. if these peyton's wavered would not be setting

a dangerous precedent for, for how all of this works in the development of life saving drugs and drugs in general. well, i think that is a really complicated, long term, somewhat ideological debate about that. and elizabeth and i might take different sites on that, but i think there's quite a different question which is much more immediate and practical which but what can be done now in the situation that we're in now to get as much as possible to as many people as possible as quickly as possible and person out of patience all the problem that those but mention, but i'm a done a said over last year they wouldn't enforce that happens, but i haven't made any difference. availability is i'm a product in low and middle income countries and agrees on that one. no. because it's not for maxine,

it's not early enough. i would agree. patients are not the only barrier, especially in the short term, but they are one of the barriers and for vaccines we need the waving of patients together with technology transfer. and when we're there now and says as a single company, they won't enforce the ip that is not the same as the need security that a global patient wave i would have about 1st can. secondly, if modern as being serious about making the technology and patients available, they would also do a technology transfer to low and middle income countries. we haven't seen this in the, in the panoramic enough far. and that's why we saying this is not, not going up, but i would agree that payments are not the only barrier that they're sandy. what, what else did you want to say that? i think that's the right folks on the technology trends. and having be involved in the licensing of the diversity vaccine and the discussion about how we do that. one of the things really, really tricky to think about how you all's the company to transfer technology

really quickly. because it's a lot of hard work. it comes at the expense of other things company might be doing is how do you force a company to sort email today rather than in the morning, for example, is things like that that make it move quickly. it's quite easy to say you will technology transfer, but you know, it's really hard to make it happen very efficiently and very fast. i think also it's important to think about whether transferring technology to loaners and come country manufacturers is the best way to increase supply of a particular vaccine on a case by case basis. i think some back thing that probably is on for others. perhaps it's not elizabeth, how much hope you have with us getting behind this initiative. it's an historic move and it shows that ip is exactly, it's been recognized as a barrier to the scale up. so we need the patient waiving, we need the technology transfer and all technology,

especially also m r. a should be taken into account because we need to end the panoramic. we need to have more vaccines available for more people to stay live and get out of the more quickly from doctors without borders and sandy douglas from the genet institute. thanks to both of you. thanks very much. thank you. and he's outside correspondent derek williams, answering your questions on the corona virus call. people keep saying we don't know about possible long term effects of vaccines, which should sense like soft vaccine skepticism. what are your views? oh, i think it's almost impossible to have a fruitful conversation about this topic because when someone says, yeah, but how do you know there won't be problems down the road? then that's sort of destined to turn into a pointless discussion as is really any discussion that requires predicting the

future. 100 percent. the problem is, in life and independent mac, we always have to make decisions about the future based on data that we've collected in the past. we have to choose our next moves based on what that data appears to tell us. it's not a perfect infallible system bought by any means, but it's the best one we have when it comes to decisions like whether or not to get vaccinated. so. so here's what the current data says about vaccines in general. and cobit vaccines, in particular, both the c d c and the w h o. emphasize that the chances that vaccines could cause long term health problems are extremely low. because past experience with many, many different candidates for a wide range of diseases, overwhelmingly shows that when side effects do crop up and they do,

they nearly always do so within a few days or weeks of vaccination. the biggest vaccine drive in history though, began many months ago, and hundreds of millions of cobra, 1900 doses have since been administered worldwide. the rollouts are being tracked with an eagle eye. authorities have detected a few possible serious vaccine side effects in some very rare cases, but nothing that indicates any wider trends. on the other hand, we have an absolute mountain of data on the potentially devastating long term side effects that getting covered 19 can cause being able to prevent them effectively is a huge advantage. so with the evidence saying the advantage so massively out ways,

any known risk, why wouldn't i want to get vaccinated? i don't have to predict the future. that's use that the data says, it just makes sense. me that i'm benefits all and thanks for watching. stay safe as you against the the news . the

news the news, the me, the kickoff i asked the corona season comes to an end of the round of applause by circumstances come in leading out. but she was thrilling finale the last day of a memorable scene. 30 minutes on d w. ah,

the news i am able to say matters to us in that's why we listen to their stories reporter every weekend or on d. w. can you hear me now? yes, yes, we can hear you and hello germantown. when you bring your uncle mack or you've never had before, right. just so we've got to is medical really we want to people who follow along the way, admirers and critics alike. and how is the world's most powerful woman shaking her leg is be joining us to macros last the cutting through the

noise where i come from, people are known for being fair. new york can be loud and people tell it like it is . they call it the concrete jungle, the melting toxicity that never. it's this energy that makes it feel like, oh, but amid the hostile, it's important to listen and pay attention because it's not just the loudest voice . this needs to be heard. we all have a story is how i see it is my job is to go beyond the obvious. now i'm based in europe. i my work around the world. but my instincts for me in the space is healthy, important stories behind the headlines. what is the heart of the story? why does it matter? what impacts focus if you want them to cut through the noise to get to the truth. my name is sarah kelly. i

owe a ah d w newsletter from the european union bands, flights to from an over bella. ruth, one of a number of measures put in place to punishment for diverting a passenger jet to arrest the opposition journalist also on the program. us secretary of state and to be blaine can meet with palestinian as a fast on the 2nd stop. middle east trip aimed at shoring up the seas. 5 between israel and germany. as far as the d takes a hard line to be taught into mass.