Mr. Dimitri Eynikel:

AstraZeneca’s agreement with the Serum Institute is the odd one out, to be honest, and is a bit of an exception.

We appreciate, of course, that the Serum Institute did share the technology. There is a major difference between conventional vaccines, the different types of vaccines that existed before, and the mRNA vaccines. The latter vaccines are largely synthetic vaccines and that means they are less complex to produce. In opposition to what has just been said, they can be produced by many pharmaceutical companies that normally produce medicines, because these vaccines are simpler to produce. Equally, the production process is closer to that of certain medicines. In that regard, I disagree with what was said.

It is correct that there are some 300 agreements. I am sure they exist, but to a large extent these are agreements with companies in the US and Europe, or they concern fill and finish deals. These types of deals mean the vaccine substance is produced in the US or Europe and then shipped to some companies in Africa, for example, where the vaccine is just put in the vials and quality tests are done. It is a valuable part of the production and supply chain, but it is not vaccine production. It does not provide an alternative source of supply. We have seen that, for example, in the context of the agreement between Johnson & Johnson and Biovac in South Africa, where the vials were filled in that country but then shipped back to Europe. It means that Johnson & Johnson were still selling these doses that were filled in South Africa back to Europe. Such a process does not provide any solution for African countries seeking to buy access to vaccines. A full production process is needed and we have not seen any commitment in this regard to share the requisite technology widely across the world. This is why companies in India, Indonesia, Thailand and South Africa have been successfully re-engineering and developing mRNA vaccines themselves. There is no reason they cannot do it.