What the COVID-19 Second Wave tells us about Twitter

The Covid-19 pandemic has given us several painful images in the last two years. During the first wave, the image that stayed with us was of migrant workers walking inhuman distances in the wake of an arbitrary national lockdown.During the second wave, the enduring image has been that of our social media feeds awash with desperate calls for help. Yet, amidst the shortage of critical medical equipment and the overflowing of cremation grounds, one cannot help but be struck by the great altruism and activism of thousands of regular social media users.Read the full article on Indian Express

The banal geopolitical fallout of the laboratory leak hypothesis

On 11 September 2001, the US suffered four coordinated terrorist attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 lives, injured over 25,000 people and caused at least $10 billion in property damage. Within hours, the US National Security Agency had intercepted phone calls that led them to suspect Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda of having planned and carried out the attacks. On that same evening, the CIA director confirmed this assessment to the US president. In two weeks, the FBI identified the specific attackers, and by the end of the month had published photographs and nationalities of all 19 terrorists who carried out the attacks. Of them were 15 Saudis, two Emiratis, a Lebanese and an Egyptian. Bin Laden himself was a Saudi national and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, a key conspirator, was Pakistani. The US authorities knew Bin Laden and his outfit quite well, for they had together fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, along with the Saudi and Pakistani intelligence agencies. So it is fair to say that one would have to have one’s head firmly buried in the sand to miss the glaring Saudi and Pakistani links to—and possible complicity in—the attacks.Read the full article in The Mint

Focus on getting on most of India vaccinated as quickly as possible

Let’s say a Mr Melon Rusk, one of the world’s richest billionaires, approaches the Indian government and makes an offer to deliver 2 billion doses of a covid vaccine within 2 months for ₹2 trillion. At ₹1,000 per dose, Mr Rusk’s price is at least three times that of domestic vaccines, and would make an incredibly rich man with a flashy lifestyle even richer. Should the government take the offer?

The right answer is yes, it should. Mr Rusk’s wealth, opportunism and lifestyle choices are irrelevant details and ought not to cloud our mind. Last year, the Indian economy shrank 8% due to disruptions caused by the pandemic. By this estimate, the ₹195 trillion Indian economy might be currently losing ₹300 billion every week. The financial cost of vaccinating everyone will be ‘recovered’ by the Indian economy in less than two months. The government’s own ‘business case’ for vaccination is an open and shut affair. If the economy shrinks by 8% this year, the Union and states together would suffer a revenue loss of ₹2.3 trillion (as the overall tax-to-GDP ratio is around 15%). The government should thus pay Mr Rusk ₹2 trillion to avoid suffering a bigger revenue loss.These rough estimates highlight three important points. First, that it makes abundant sense for the government to finance the cost of universal vaccination. Second, at this time, how much the vaccine costs is less important than how much and how fast it is available. Third, it does not matter which government—Union or state—is paying, as long as the citizen gets the vaccine free.Unfortunately, a lot of the public and political discourse in India is still caught up with pricing, the level of profits that manufacturers are making, and which government should bear the fiscal burden. The behaviour and utterances of some vaccine manufacturers have not helped either. Most importantly, the Union government has not bothered to explain the rationale of its vaccination policy, thereby both isolating itself and preventing public debate from being more constructive.A democracy is only as good as its discourse. If it is misdirected, the political priorities go askew and public outcomes suffer. This is not a time to obsess about prices, image or narrative. The most important national priority is to vaccinate everyone as fast as possible. Like China, India can achieve 10 to 20 million jabs per day if we recognize our strengths and play to them. So how do we get that many doses, and how do we administer them fast?In the past few weeks, the government has taken the crucial step of opening the Indian market to all vaccines approved globally. The types of vaccines available has gone up from two to eight, and the government expects over 2 billion doses to be available by December. Given that there can be many a slip between the cup and the lip, the government must focus on making more vaccines available, and available faster.We need more than 300 million doses a month. Will compulsory licensing and patent waivers help? The historical discourse on this topic has been focused on lowering the cost of essential drugs. In our case and at this time, the issue is not cost, but quantity. It is unclear that compulsory licensing will by itself lead to additional manufacturing capacity coming online fast enough. But there is no harm in trying.There is a ready case for the government to let Covaxin be manufactured by more companies, with free licensing for domestic markets until the pandemic has ended. Bharat Biotech should be compensated if necessary. This will enable state governments and private manufacturers to explore how they can create or use existing plants to produce vaccines. The Indian government will be justified in doing the same for Oxford/AstraZeneca and other vaccines, but it is prudent to start with the partly-publicly funded indigenous vaccine.Some of the heartburn over the liberalized vaccination strategy is unwarranted. Equity considerations can and should be addressed by the government making vaccines available to everyone free of cost. As long as this baseline is ensured, there is no equity argument against private and decentralized vaccination. Also, the government’s vaccination programme can respond to epidemiological triggers by redirecting its supplies to where they are needed most.Finally, it is misplaced thinking that government channels alone can take us to 10 million jabs per day. Remember, large-scale covid testing took off only after private labs were allowed to carry them out. The Indian healthcare model is a mixture of the public and private, the Union, state, municipal, panchayat, NGO and, yes, unfortunately sometimes the shady and underhand. But now is not a time to pass judgement on it or attempt its reform—now is a time to put it to work. The government’s role is to enable the system, not fight it.Mr Melon Rusk, by the way, is a fictitious character. But if we agree that it is sensible to accept his offer, we need not begrudge paying our domestic manufacturers ₹300-400 per dose. For a billion people, the cost is a mere 0.4% of GDP and incurring it could allow the government to recover 2.5 times that amount in otherwise lost taxes this year.This article was originally published in ThePrint

Blaming the government’s pandemic response? Do it for the right reasons

The Union government has received a lot of flak over its management of the pandemic response, and deservedly so. But I want to look at three incorrect — or at least problematic — frames being used to blame the government’s pandemic response, inadequate and confused as it already is. The intention is to focus on questions that matter.Incorrect Frame #1: Blame Vaccine DiplomacyAs cases have skyrocketed and vaccine supplies have plummeted, India’s vaccine diplomacy has come under the scanner. Today’s dominant narrative is that by prioritising vaccine exports over domestic inoculation, India did a disservice to its people. I disagree. It’s not altruism but national self-interest that guides international humanitarian assistance efforts by all states. By giving away vaccines to smaller states in the subcontinent, India signalled the positive role it can play in the world order. Another way of thinking about vaccine diplomacy is to think of its opportunity cost. At the current vaccination rate, India would’ve had just five additional days of supplies had it not given any of the nearly 10.7 million doses as gifts to other countries. A majority of the deliveries (almost 35 million) have been under commercial terms between manufacturers and other countries. Moreover, had India blocked commercial exports earlier, India would’ve received much less enthusiastic support from other countries in this moment of crisis.Holding the Union government accountable for its mistakes is essential. Equally important is identifying what the exact error was. The original sin was not placing enough vaccine orders because the government was complacent about having conquered the virus. It calculated that the pandemic would peter out even with a snail-paced domestic vaccination campaign.By internalising that India was wrong in extending its help to other countries in its own time of predicament, we would be learning the wrong lesson. Such heuristics tend to stick around for long in the Indian strategic affairs community. Try arguing for developing overseas operations military capability of any kind, and the idea will be shot down, citing the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPFK) failure in Sri Lanka nearly three decades ago. Vaccine diplomacy mustn’t be perceived as another IPKF moment.Read the full article in Times of IndiaImage credits: Illustration by Freepik Storyset

Modi’s only respite now is to adopt Kautilya’s doctrine. But first, own up your mistake

India is in the midst of a national health emergency of an unprecedented scale. Once again, it shines a spotlight on decision-making of the political leadership, and once again, the political elites could do well by taking a leaf out of Kautilya’s Arthashastra.

The catastrophic scale of the Covid-19 second wave calls into question the State’s basic duty of providing raksha (security) and palana (welfare). Rajdharma (duty of the king), as espoused in the ancient treatise, throws light on a scientific process of decision-making with an ethical underpinning, looped together by the text’s philosophical foundation (Anvikshiki). This, perhaps, is the need of the hour.

Right decisions at the right time is Kautilya’s mantra of success. He ranks good counsel (mantrashakti) higher than the State’s armed might (prabhavashakti), and the power of bravery (utsahshakti). But, how should one arrive at a decision, and for what end?

The four core sciences outlined in the treatise are Philosophy (Anvikshiki), Vedas (Trayi), Economics (Varta), and Political Science (Dandaniti), and they broadly correspond to the text’s trivarga, or three aims — artha (material well-being), dharma (spiritual good) and kama (pleasures). Each of the sciences lends value to efficient statecraft but it is Anvikshiki (science of inquiry), the lamp of all sciences, that illuminates the worth of the branches of knowledge and their relative weight in a given concrete situation. It is the power of critical thinking and reasoning alone through enumeration in Sankhya, breaking down, synthesis in Yoga, and pure empiricism in Lokayat that shapes a sound decision.

One wheel alone does not turn

Rulership can be carried out with the help of associates. The final decision taken by the sovereign is the last step of a systematic and logical process of policy-making. A matter of critical importance is discussed with the ‘councillors’ and ‘council of ministers’ and the king decides on the course of action based on what the majority among them declare or what is favourable to the success of the work.The opinion of the ministers is important for two reasons. One, they are responsible for the successful execution of all undertakings, protection against calamities, and overall development of settled lands. Two, they are the ‘go-to’ source for credible information gathering. The role of the ministers, as the ‘eyes’ of the ruler, is clearly outlined – providing knowledge of the unperceived, corroborating what is known, removing doubt in case of two possible alternatives, and furnishing complete information on a partly known fact. The preceptors and ministers were also tasked with providing checks and balances for the ruler who may potentially err in performing his duties by ‘pricking him with the goad’.The other set of inputs in decision-making was provided by the ‘councillors’. All undertakings were preceded by consultations with three or four councillors who would give their opinion individually and jointly, along with reasoned justification for holding them. This helps bring about the threefold affairs of the king: directly perceived (by the king), unperceived (through the ministers), and inferred (evidence-based deductions).

The buck stops here – swamin 

Kautilya lays a premium on the political performance of the ruler (swamin); the king and his rule is the sum-total of the constituents of the State. Therefore, the very first book of the treatise is dedicated to the training of the ruler – casting out of the group six enemies (lust, anger, greed, pride, arrogance, and foolhardiness) for cognitive clarity, cultivating intellect through association with elders, acquiring discipline and a scientific temper (through intentness on truth, reflection, rejection of false views, and understanding through retention), keeping a watchful eye by means of spies, securing the well-being of the subjects, and maintaining the duties of the subjects by performing his own duties.

Perhaps, the two most important aspects of Kautilyan rulership, which are imparted through training in science, are logic and ethics. In a consideration regarding calamity of the king and kingship, a ruler deviating from science is a graver misfortune than a blind king; the latter may be well advised by his associates but the former ruins the kingdom and himself through injustice.

But what holds the key in a calamity is a timely decision; not impulsive, but quick. The king is advised to hear an urgent matter and not put it off because an affair postponed becomes difficult, or even impossible, to settle.How Prime Minister Narendra Modi has fared in dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic and the related challenges will finally be judged by the people in the next Lok Sabha election, which is more than three years away. Currently, it seems that he has kept his distance from the Kautilyan precepts. The quality of advice from the ministers and councillors is questionable. The other is one of misidentification. The ruled are identified and dealt with according to their support to the ruling party, rather than garnering the support of all through reasoned, rational actions. Permitting the Kumbh Mela tells the story. This is fine for electoral politics but is out of place for governance. Because governance requires the pursuit of Yogakshema, the welfare of all its citizens through righteous conduct strongly predicated on empirical soundness.Furthermore, decision-making should not equate the opposition to the enemy of the State and deal with them as such. The pervasive use of the National Security Act being the prime example. People are being denied access to the truth by a media that has acquired a reputation for pliancy. Controlling informational access and purveying the facts has not been dented even during the health emergency. Attempts to hide and contest the extent of governance failure will surely sully India’s image both abroad and among its own citizens.It is perhaps overdue that India’s ‘swamin’ acknowledges that the buck stops with him and owns up to mistakes in decision-making, even if he is not directly responsible, due to poor advice or other unknown and uncontrollable reasons produced by a virus that is mutating and spreading at a speed beyond human ability to check. Such an admission will allow for altering the course of future actions and hopefully assist India to recover better from the ongoing tragedy.Kautilya rightly reminds us that in the happiness of the subject lies the happiness of the king and what is beneficial to the subjects is to his own benefit. Admitting to mistakes along with embrace of objective and sound decision-making will generate better quality of interventions. More importantly, it may repair and arrest the waning confidence of Indians in their swamin at a time of a grave national catastrophe.Dr Kajari Kamal is Research Faculty at Takshashila Institution. Lt Gen Prakash Menon is Director, Strategic Studies Programme, Takshashila Institution, and former military adviser, National Security Council Secretariat. Views are personal.This article was first published in ThePrint

With 16% of global population having cornered 60% of vaccines, patent waiver is welcome

This article was first published in National HeraldLast October, India and South Africa proposed in the World Trade Organization that intellectual property rights of Covid-related drugs and vaccines be suspended. This proposal was supported by 60 countries. However, the United States, still under the Trump administration and the EU were opposed to the proposal.The then presidential candidate Joe Biden in early July itself had said that he supported such a proposal. So, there was expectation, but the pressure from the pharma lobby was intense too. Besides, abruptly curtailing patent rights is against the basic sanctity of contracts. You can’t renege on a sovereign promise, which is what patent rights are.

Then in April last month more than 100 Nobel Prize winners, and several prominent world leaders, including former heads of State, urged the United States to support a waiver of the TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) clause in the WTO. Such a waiver they said, would vastly increase innoculation rates, and would legally allow developing countries to make their own vaccines, which were currently developed and produced by global pharma companies.The signed letter also said that vaccine knowhow and technology should be shared openly, and industry monopolies should not be allowed to create artificial supply shortages. This is seen as essential to winning the war against the pandemic. Winning over US support for a patent waiver is crucial because it entails taking on the might of major pharma companies like Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax, Johnson and Johnson and AstraZeneca.

Of course, there is the argument, which has been examined by India as well, that the current TRIPS regime of the WTO has a escape clause in case of emergencies. This is called compulsory licensing, wherein a company can be forced to disclose and license its patents to others, for the sake of national emergencies. But developing countries have been reluctant to use this clause for fear of displeasing the United States, which could counter the move with some other diplomatic or economic punitive measures.It must be remembered that during the anthrax scare of 2001, the Canadian government had threatened to break the patent protection of Bayer, and use compulsory licensing to produce ciprofloxacin on a mass scale through a small company. Bayer however settled the matter with the Canadian government by donating large amounts of ciprofloxacin and offering more in case of an emergency. This led the Canadian government to agree to acquire cipro exclusively from Bayer for the duration of the patent agreement.So, there is a precedent, but many developing countries of Africa have been reluctant to use this route, even for genuine national emergencies like AIDS. An interesting success story without breaking any patent rules was that of CIPLA, an Indian pharma company which in 1993 developed and sold a drug at one tenth the then prevailing price. By 2001, CIPLA had developed an anti-AIDS drug cocktail and sold it at a very low cost, upending the hitherto monopolies, and vastly contributed to the effort to combat and control AIDS.So, in the present context of Covid, the compulsory licensing avenue is only of academic interest. Besides the US has been increasingly under diplomatic pressure to relax the restrictions on export of vaccines which lie unutilised.This week President Biden announced that he would support a TRIPS waiver at the WTO. This is a historic decision. It comes after surmounting the challenges and pressures mounted by the pharma lobby, including the scare that the Russians and Chinese would get the American pharma technology, and that if there was an indiscriminately large production of vaccines all around the world, it would create a big stress on supply chains.As of this writing 120 out of 164 member countries in the WTO are supporting the TRIPS waiver for vaccine patents. Added to this is the statistical evidence that 60 percent of the world’s supplies have been cornered by the rich countries, or only about 16 percent of the world’s population. There is excess stock sitting around in the US which will remain unutilised.

Sure enough the US decision was opposed by many pharma companies and leaders like Chancellor Angela Merkel. She said that patents were not the limiting factor responsible for the vaccine shortage. It was production capacities and high quality standards. But she surely misses the point, that patent waiver allows production to happen on a massive scale, so that the current capacities are no longer the bottleneck, since newer capacities will come up, without fear of infringing on patents.A German company BioNTech also echoed similar sentiments, saying that replicating the manufacturing process and mastering that technology can take years. It also added that it was committed to selling the mRNA vaccine to developing countries on a no-profit basis. But that no-profit price surely has the value of the patent, which itself makes it prohibitive. Strangely even Brazil has opposed the patent waiver proposed by Biden, and so has Bill Gates. Of course, if Covid vaccine patents are going to be breached now, the world has to find a way to compensate the pharma companies for the breach of contract.How this waiver proposal will travel through the WTO’s voting process remains to be seen. Crucial time may be lost, so India cannot count on this proposal to help its cause. It needs to rapidly ramp up vaccine production and imports, and immediately go for universal and free vaccinations. It should not only depend on “app” based booking, because given the great digital divide, it puts the poor and underprivileged at a great disadvantage. Imagine the areas where telecom connectivity is poor, digital literacy is low (can you do a captcha in 20 seconds), and when the Cowin website open slot is as elusive as a passing comet in the sky.The issue of the TRIPS waiver for Covid vaccines is also the right time to examine excessive patent protection, and overall exorbitant monopoly drug prices. There is now abundant research which shows that the maxim “no patents, no drugs” is false. And the billions in dollars needed to develop a new drug is mostly due to costs incurred on stage 2 and stage 3 clinical trials, which are actually in the nature of “public goods”. That’s because once the safety and reliability of the new drug is established in those trials, it deserves to be public knowledge. Hence that cost should simply be reimbursed, and patent-induced monopoly rights should be drastically reduced. This is a longer-term plan. Right now the Covid vaccines are on the agenda.Dr.Ajit Ranade is an economist and Senior Fellow, Takshashila Institution

We need to reengineer India’s entire system of administration

This article was first published in The Mint.Following Adar Poonawalla’s statements to the British media, on 3 May India’s government issued a media release stating that it had placed new orders for 110 million doses of Covishield and 50 million doses of Covaxin from Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech, to be delivered over the next three months. Refuting allegations that fresh orders had not been placed, the government revealed that these purchases had been paid for in advance in the last week of April. The release also noted the government’s previous order of 100 million and 20 million doses of the two respective vaccines, of which 87% and 44% had been fulfilled as on that date. The earliest order was perhaps placed in January, after vaccines received regulatory approval and before India’s vaccination programme started in the middle of that month.

In contrast, the British government ordered 90 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine as early as May 2020, enough to cover 67% of its population. The same month, the US government ordered 300 million doses, adequate for 46% of its population. By September 2020, Japan, the EU, Australia, Canada, Germany and Brazil had all placed significant orders. Now here’s the most important part—all these countries placed orders for a vaccine that didn’t exist back then. These were not purchases. They were bets. Of course, by placing such large bets, they reduced their risks as more money raises the likelihood of the development of a successful vaccine.

Can the Indian government purchase things that do not yet exist? The answer, of course, is yes. It is very powerful. Both the Constitution and extant rules can be interpreted or changed for it to do what it wants. That’s the theory. But the practical question is this: Which public official, minister or civil servant would want to sign off on such a purchase? It would take a very courageous joint secretary (in the Humphrey Applebyan sense) to even recommend as much. In case the purchased non-existent vaccine fails to materialize, not only would careers come to a premature end, jail terms would beckon. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent an ambitious government auditor or opportunistic politician from raking up a ‘scam’ years later, long after people have forgotten the context.

So it should not surprise us that India ordered its first vaccines in January, after they came into existence. It should also not surprise us that the order quantities were small, for without a directive from the top political level, the system dare not commit to more than the production capabilities of manufacturers.None of this is to absolve political lapses. But if we are to secure better governance outcomes, we must understand the limitations of our administrative structures and decision-making culture. As we saw over the past decade, it is a comforting myth that enacting a legislation, securing a Supreme Court verdict or electing different leaders will change outcomes. Unless we reform how India is governed, the structures, processes and culture of government, we will continue to be disappointed by what the system actually delivers.Take another case. Given that healthcare capacity is exhausted in many places and families and civil society groups are frantically arranging vital supplies from across the country and abroad, it would be prudent to remove all duties, taxes and bureaucratic friction on them until the pandemic is under control. Yet, while the finance ministry waived customs duties on many medical goods, GST is a different matter. Many goods received as donation for free distribution are tax exempt until 30 June, but firms and non-profit organizations that buy them even for free distribution are not automatically exempt. Chief secretaries of states have been asked to appoint nodal officers so that “entities desirous of importing COVID relief material for free distribution may approach them for certification". I am sure that ministers and civil servants know that the best thing to do at this time is to waive GST and paperwork on anything remotely related to healthcare, and not sit in judgement on whether the item is useful for covid treatment or not. Yet, they find this extremely difficult to do, for the rate structure is not the only thing that is complicated about the GST framework.If a system works, it is because the outcomes of the actions of its good people outweigh those of the bad ones. If those good people do not have the power, authority and incentives to act, then the system does not deliver. We cannot depend on exceptional, courageous, heroic and career-suicidal officers. All officials should be able to exercise judgement within their scope of duties and act in the public interest. The pandemic highlights the need for a fundamental rethink of our administrative goals, structures and processes. From national defence to public health, India has been let down by the inability of our government to act early, take necessary risks and procure what’s needed.Political responsibility is easy to identify, and in elections we have a regular accountability mechanism. Whether and how citizens choose to exercise it is another matter. What is less obvious is the task of re-engineering government that has been overdue for two decades or more. It would be a shame if the immense pain and suffering we are now going through does not push us to pay attention to it.

Don’t just game the system, return to Kautilya’s goal of happiness in Covid 2nd wave

Gaming the system is a term that usually carries negative connotations of achieving desired outcomes by manipulating rules and procedures that are meant to protect and regulate the system. However, it can also be utilised for benevolent purposes. At the core, it is power play. But ultimately, how power is wielded and what purposes are achieved for the common good, provide scope for an informed judgement.

The passing but devastating second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic has brought focus on India’s health care system, and calls to strengthen it will rent the air until either another wave arrives or another event, good or bad, gains centre stage.

But these constant streams of events blind us to perceive the issue as a whole or how the second wave of the pandemic in India connects to the extant strengths and weaknesses of the Indian State. In particular, the State acts through its political system, which is the fountainhead that provides the wherewithal to tackle the menaces as well as to discern, create and exploit opportunities. The sole purpose in theory is one of improving the welfare of its citizens. This is what Kautilya describes as the central focus of statecraft — Yogakshema. Read the full article on ThePrint

Vaccinate people in areas worst affected by COVID's second wave

This article was first published The Mint. You can read the original piece here.In the past month, we have learnt two things about the pandemic. First, that relaxed behaviour by previously better-protected populations across the country is causing a surge in new coronavirus infections; and second, that the speed of the vaccination programme is constrained by hesitancy, mismatch of demand and supply, and perhaps short-term challenges in scaling up vaccine production. In the light of what we know now, there is a case to review the national vaccination strategy and direct it at quelling a widespread second wave.

Instead of pursuing a progressive nationwide expansion of vaccination prioritized by age-groups, the Narendra Modi government should open up vaccination to all adults in cities and districts where there is a surge in new covid cases. This is not only the most effective way to use available vaccine supplies, but also to avoid pressure on the national vaccination programme by reducing the risks of more serious second waves elsewhere in the country.Not only should the government make every adult in the worst affected areas eligible for vaccination, but massively expand the vaccination points by permitting all registered clinics to administer the vaccine. As the government is currently the sole distributor of vaccines, it should ensure that these worst-hit areas are supplied as a matter of urgent priority. India would be better off with a dynamic vaccination strategy of ‘quelling the surge’ wherever it occurs.Contrary to what its critics say, India’s vaccination programme has demonstrated a good mix of caution and flexibility so far. A gradual ramp-up was justified, given that two new vaccines are being administered to hundreds of millions of adults. So is the careful expansion of vaccination points and age-groups. But this programme was drawn up when many experts and analysts—including your columnist—didn’t expect such a severe second wave. Circumstances have changed. What the National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration Working on Management of Covid-19 Vaccine Roll-Out (Negvac) and the Union cabinet must now take into account is the risk that the current path of the programme might not be fast enough and focused enough to prevent second waves in many more parts of the country. To use a military metaphor, we would do better to adopt a war footing, concentrating forces to win decisive battles, instead of spreading them thinly all across the front. Indeed, the very case for centralized management of national vaccination is the ability it grants to focus resources in a strategic manner across regions and populations.The main disadvantage of central planning is that it can never equal the market’s efficiency in matching demand and supply. Cases of wasted vaccines that worry our public officials would disappear if allocations were done by markets instead of administrators. Similarly, raising the daily vaccination rate and extending the coverage require private-sector involvement. No public service in India has been delivered by the government alone. There is some justification in keeping vaccines under government control in the early stages, when supply is limited and the vaccines’ impact on the population unknown. But once supply is no longer a serious constraint—perhaps a quarter hence—vaccination should be fully deregulated. As long as a good vaccine is available free at government hospitals and inexpensively at private ones, opening up the market for vaccinations will enable India to reach its targets faster. It makes little sense for the government—even if it were not facing severe fiscal constraints—to insist on subsidizing vaccines for people who can easily afford them. The only requirement would be to ensure all vaccinations are registered on a reinforced Co-Win backbone.In many Indian cities today, the younger population is more mobile and exposed, as it is driving economic activity. This is desirable, as it fuels a national recovery from the devastation caused by the pandemic. Yet, this is the very population that is last in queue for the vaccine, while being both vulnerable to the disease as well as responsible for its spread. The older population is more vulnerable, yes, but is relatively less required to move around. In the face of a surge in infections, from both epidemiological and economic standpoints, it is better to prioritize higher-risk younger adults for vaccination and isolate the older ones until more supplies come aboard.This is arguably the most ethical approach too, as public policy ought to be judged more by outcomes, less by intentions, and least by emotions. Redirecting limited vaccine supplies to highly-affected populations will mean that other populations and regions will have to wait longer. This in itself is not inequitable, for we must consider the network effects of an epidemic. Quelling a surge helps not only the population and a region that is prioritized, but also others who might face their own surges if the situation is not tackled. In any event, it is now only a matter of a few months before adequate supplies of several vaccines are available. But the next few weeks can save a lot of people across the country from avoidable suffering if enough vaccines reach the few affected districts in time.

Vaccine diplomacy post-Covid-19

Vaccine diplomacy is state-led action of leveraging vaccine expertise for furthering foreign policy goals. These goals can range from maintaining ties between nations, burnishing an international reputation, or developing influence within a region. A robust framework can aid in the identification of vaccine diplomacy opportunities and allow India to quickly respond to such need.According to GAVI, the international organisation aimed at improving access to vaccines, “today the potential for diseases to spread is actually increasing,” due to an exponential increase in international travel, an increasing majority of people living in urbanised areas and climate change. (Read more)

DNA Technology Regulation Bill: Will the Standing Committee's concerns about privacy, capacity be addressed by Parliament?

This article first appeared in FirstpostThe DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 is listed for consideration in the ongoing budget session of the Parliament. The Bill is aiming to create a DNA Regulatory Board to oversee the standardization of DNA profiling – a technique widely employed in forensics, where databanks of DNA from victims, deceased remains, crime scene, suspects and offenders can be compiled. DNA profiling has so far been used for forensic purposes in India, where it has been used to solve individual crimes. The new Bill may go a long way in streamlining the use of DNA profiling, and widen its purpose in identifying the deceased (in case of missing persons or disasters) and track down repeat offenders based on the data available in the DNA data bank. (Read more)

Private sector can be govt’s useful ally in Covid vaccination, not an adversary

Despite being the second-fastest country to vaccinate over 10 million people and currently having the third-highest number of people vaccinated against Covid-19, it is fair to say that India’s vaccination programme has gotten off to a slow start. At around 300,000 per day, the current vaccination rate is only a quarter of the 1.3 million per day that was estimated by the government in January. As Naushad Forbes, co-chairman of Forbes Marshall, pointed out in Business Standard a few days ago, at this rate it could take up to 17 years to administer two doses to 800 million adults.

In other words, the current pace of India’s vaccination programme is, paradoxically, both impressive and inadequate. To be effective, it must be ramped up 10-20 times, so that 80 per cent of the population can be protected by the end of the year. Speed is important for many reasons: the faster the population is immunised, the quicker the economic recovery, the smaller the risk of new strains, and lower the human cost.Read the full article on ThePrint

STIP2020: A wish-list, not a policy

This article first appeared in IndiaTogetherThe COVID-19 experience has brought attention to the importance of science, technology and innovation. Researchers facilitated the rapid understanding of a new virus. Technology underpinned efforts for curbing the spread of the disease. Entrepreneurship led to quick production of diagnostics, treatment and vaccines. But within this global picture, there are vast differences between countries. Only some nations have been able to marshal the science and the resources to respond to the pandemic.What about India? The country has significant manufacturing capacity, but the lack of homegrown vaccines as well as a generally weak public health system are major obstacles, and reaching vaccines and treatment to our large population will not be swift. We simply haven't invested enough in the past - in science as well as in healthcare - to be able to do what is needed today. [Read more]

COVID-19 vaccine diplomacy: India’s opportunity to regain leadership in the neighbourhood

COVID-19 vaccine diplomacy: India’s opportunity to regain leadership in the neighbourhoodBy Pranathi Rao

In early 2020, India responded to COVID-19 with a strict lockdown, mask mandates, and a broad shutdown of schools and recreational centers. The disease burden- as the country with the second highest number of total COVID-19 cases- meant that India spent much of the year battling internal issues, but current lack of global leadership from the US and the EU means that India can no longer afford to focus inwards. Rather, the government must aim to export more vaccines and provide greater aid to struggling nations around the world.Science diplomacy is defined, nebulously, as a series of interactions that occur in the intersection of the two fields of science and diplomacy. A subset of science diplomacy is called vaccine diplomacy, which involves the convergence of vaccine development, import and export for furthering a country’s diplomatic goals. India has no specific framework for this particular kind of diplomacy, but are not hesitating to use vaccine diplomacy to drum up international support and goodwill.Read the full article on Firstpost.

Why India will not see a big second wave of Covid-19

There will not be a significant second wave of Covid-19 in India.

Last August, using a Cynically Optimistic Back Of The Envelope, or COBOTE, calculation, I estimated that Covid-19 will end its epidemic phase in India by January 2021. Karthik Shashidhar, my collaborator, used the curve-fitting technique to predict that the pandemic will be over in the country by February 2021. It appears that these predictions were not too far off the mark.

Read the full article on ThePrint

Will Indian Scientific Temper Survive 2021?

(This article was first published in The Wire)2020 was a disaster year for almost everyone – but it was a unique opportunity for Indian science. An oft-neglected enterprise, it received unprecedented attention as scientists tried to innovate in the diagnostics, treatment and vaccine spaces. Taken together, this was an opportunity to demonstrate India’s capabilities and expertise – not just for a domestic audience but the international one as well.The obstacles 2020 brought were a ladder for Indian science to rise up to a leadership position and become a driver of the Indian economy.

But opacity, ambiguity and distrust have squandered this opportunity. Only two weeks into 2021 and India has claimed a major casualty – scientific temper – and the suspects are not the usual zealots or the so-called “lay people” but the very custodians of the ‘temple’ of science. (Read more)

DCGI’s Covaxin ‘approval’ is political jumla. It reinforces idea of Modi’s Atmanirbhar Bharat

Other than to the highly credulous, it is pretty obvious that the Drugs Controller General of India’s ‘approval’ for Bharat Biotech’s indigenous vaccine candidate, Covaxin, was announced for extra-scientific reasons. It has neither completed Phase 3 clinical trials, nor has the safety and efficacy data been published. In fact, the drug regulator has not so much approved the vaccine for general public use, but rather granted permission for “restricted use in emergency situation in public interest as an abundant precaution, in clinical trial mode…”.

Again, other than to the highly credulous, it is pretty obvious that such an ‘approval’ was announced alongside that of the Serum Institute’s Covishield for political reasons. The Narendra Modi government did not want to lose the opportunity to score political points: that India has produced an indigenous vaccine under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Read More

No matter what Bharat Biotech says, Covaxin is just not ready for approvals

Bharat Biotech got an approval for its COVID-19 vaccine and along with it came a lot of flak from critics who believe that the process was rushed for no valid reason. Dr Krishna Ella, the founder and chairman of Bharat Biotech, retaliated blaming everyone from the media to rival vaccine makers, except that his arguments hold no water.The drug regulator's approval for any new drug or vaccine is based on the understanding that the drug or vaccine's benefits outweigh its risks. However, considering that he admitted that Phase-III trials are still underway, there is no final estimate of Covaxin’s efficacy, and without that number, the approval should not have been granted.Benefits like how effective the vaccine is in preventing disease, and risks such as high mortality rate if the vaccine is not given or vaccine side-effects, are critical data that inform the approval. (Read more)

The big convergence challenge that we face in this new decade

We enter the third decade of this millennium amid rising doubts, risks and worries about technology, markets, nationalism, democracy and the world order. The unqualified enthusiasm for them that we saw in the past two decades has given way to concerns about what their right dosage is, and what, if any, are the antidotes should we have willy-nilly overdosed on any of them. This is good. Societies that try to answer them truthfully and thoughtfully can expect to emerge stronger and more successful in 2030. For public policy, as for investors and value creators, the opportunities and risks lie at the intersection of technology, health, society and geopolitics.Read the full article in The Mint

Why blocking Sci-Hub will actually hurt national interest

Earlier this month, three foreign academic publishers sued two foreign websites for copyright infringement in a case before the Delhi High Court. Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society, among the world’s largest publishers of academic papers, wanted the court to block Sci-Hub and LibGen, the largest providers of ‘free downloads’ of their content in India. This case is important because it can have a significant impact on the broader research, academic and education environment in India.Read More on ThePrint