More needles in the haystack: vaccine candidates proliferate

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right.

Now Mint Mobile is offering you the.

Gift of 50% off unlimited.

To be clear, that's half the price.

Not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means a half day. Yeah.

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow. 135 gigabytes of network busy. Taxes and fees extra.

See mintmobile.com hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile.

You know, one of the perks about.

Having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to.

Know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint.

Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month.

Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes. If network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the intelligence on Economist Radio. I'm your host, Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. There hasn't been an election in Palestine for more than 15 years. Mahmoud Abbas keeps making noises about holding one, but it never really happens. This time it might, but Mr. Abbas is likely to end up the only viable candidate, so why bother? And there's long been a push to make meat in laboratories to meet consumer demands for animal welfare and environmental friendliness. But all things considered, it might not be people that are the first big consumers of lab grown meat. First up, though, just as soon as it became clear that a novel virus outbreak in China was going to become a global concern, it became clear that the world would need a vaccine. In those early days, that seemed impossibly distant. Vaccines often take the better part of a decade to develop and test. Now, just a year on, and several are already approved in many jurisdictions. Then in the space of a day last week, encouraging results from two more. But in that intervening year, the coronavirus has done what all viruses do. It's mutated. And that adds a complicating factor to an already complicated global rollout.

So the two vaccines are quite exciting. The first is from Navavax, an American company, and the second is from Janssen which is Belgium, but it's part of Johnson and Johnson, also an American drug company.

Slavia Chankova is our healthcare correspondent.

They're almost completely effective against the worst cases of COVID 19. They're also easy to store in regular fridges, which makes them very easy to distribute more widely than the vaccines we already have approved. But they also have some key differences.

Okay, let's take them in turn. What is the novavax vaccine then?

So the Novavax vaccine is made of a lab made version of the Spike protein, which is part of the virus, so the immune system would recognize it. And that's how you develop immunity against the virus itself. It's a more traditional method of vaccine making than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, which are already being used around the world. And the Novavax vaccine was tested in Britain and in South Africa. In Britain, it was almost 90% effective against symptomatic COVID 19 when given in 2 shots 21 days apart. In South Africa, however, it was only around 50 to 60% effective.

Okay. And the Janssen vaccine?

The Janssen vaccine was also tested in several countries. America, South Africa and Latin America. The Janssen vaccine is made out of the spike protein of the virus, which is delivered by a common cold virus. That's how it gets into your body. That virus is harmless, but your immune system recognizes it and that's how you develop your body immunity. Crucially, it's a one shot vaccine. Now the results on efficacy are also very encouraging. The vaccine reduced moderate to severe cases of COVID 19 by 72% in America. But in South Africa, the effectiveness was also much lower, same as the Novavax vaccine, it was just around 57%. This being said, comparing vaccines is very tricky because the trials have been conducted at different times. So the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, when those results came out, the variants that we have now weren't circulating widely. Nonetheless, all the vaccines are highly effective in preventing hospitalization and death. And that's the most important thing to keep in mind.

But both of these vaccines in the trials in South Africa were less effective, suggesting, I guess, that both of them are less effective against the South African variant of the virus.

Yes, that's right. They are less effective, but not ineffective. Effectiveness is still around 50, 60%, which is reasonably good. I should say this was to be expected because laboratory tests for the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccines have also hinted that they may be less effective against the variant from South Africa. But this will not be the last variants we keep Seeing new variants emerging around the world. There may be some that are already here, but they're not detected because not enough sequencing happens in most countries. So this is definitely something that we should be prepared for.

But how worrisome is that that there is already a variant that is sort of unpicking the efficacy of some of these vaccines?

I mean, this is something that we have to live with. Mutations will continue to evolve, and we will see more like those that the vaccines are less effective against. And several vaccine makers are already working on modified jabs targeting the mutations. So what we'll see is probably something similar to what we have with the seasonal flu vaccines. You get a shot every year which is customized to the circulating strains of the virus. The problem is that with the flu, there are systems around the world that have been set up to track those viruses. These systems are, well, running. They've been around for decades.

So.

So vaccine manufacturers know every year which strains to put in the vaccine. There is no such system for COVID 19. America and some other countries are setting up variant surveillance, but this is not a global effort, which means that we may have variants emerging around the world for which the existing vaccines are less effective, and we don't know about that.

And what about in the meantime, the existence of these potential new vaccines that seem to be effective and the potential for these variants? How does that change the kind of global rollout plans for what we do have and do know?

These two new vaccines are excellent news because we have a shortage right now of vaccines globally and even in the countries that have the most supplies. For the moment, Novavax has promised to deliver about 2 billion doses this year. Half of that will be made in India. Johnson and Johnson also think that they can make a billion doses this year. Half of that is going to go to Covax, which is a global facility that will supply vaccines to developing countries. So these vaccines are particularly good news for poorer countries because they're easier to store and distribute. The Johnson and Johnson is just a single shot, which gives it a massive advantage. But of course, once a country has purchased vaccines, they still have to be delivered. And as we can see, production doesn't always run on schedule. We saw that in the tussle for vaccines between the EU and Britain for the AstraZeneca shots. And then, of course, getting the vaccines into people's arms also presents its own challenges, as we can see, particularly in Europe and in the US as well. To some extent, the distribution is often tied up in bureaucracy or logistical challenges on the ground or even in some cases people not wanting the vaccine.

Do you think kind of taken in total that essentially this grand effort will get ahead of the virus before the virus gets ahead of humans efforts?

I think we've already made tremendous progress. I mean, if you think a year ago we couldn't even dream of having a vaccine so quickly, and now we have at least five vaccines tested in large scale proper clinical trials which are vastly effective. I mean, they're almost completely effective against hospitalization and death. There are some which are also still in clinical trials. So we may see in the coming weeks or months more successful clinical trials being announced. Once production of all these vaccines gets going in the next couple of months, supplies will be steady. So I think that by the end of this year things will look much, much better.

Thanks very much for joining us. Slavea.

Thank you, Jason.

Developing and approving vaccines is one gargantuan task. Distributing them and getting people to take them are two more. The latest episode of Checks and Balance, our sister show on American affairs, asks what President Joe Biden can do toward a faster and fairer vaccine rollout. Find checks and Balance wherever you listen. When Mahmoud Abbas became president of Palestine in 2005, it was meant to be for a four year term. But he's still in office 16 years later. That could in principle change this year. Earlier this month, Mr. Abbas announced plans to hold what would be the first elections in the occupied territories since his rise to power. Many see the move as an effort to gain favor with the new Biden administration in America. But as ever with Palestine, the reasons for the announcement are a bit more complicated.

There's a lot of cynicism in Palestine about this call for elections because it's hardly the first time Mahmoud Abbas has done this.

Greg Karlstrom is the Economist's Middle east correspondent.

It's become something of an annual tradition for him to call for new elections. They never actually happen. Instead, in reality, you have a Palestinian president who is 85 years old who has unilaterally extended his term rules by decree at this point. And you have a defunct parliament that hasn't met in more than a decade.

So then why pay any attention at all to this latest announcement?

There's reason to think that Mahmoud Abbas is more serious this time. For one thing, he's actually fixed dates for the elections. It's not simply a vague call for them. He's met with the head of the Electoral Commission and they've decided to hold a parliamentary ballot in May and then a presidential vote later on in July. There's also been some discussion between the two main Palestinian parties, between Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza, and Fatah, the president's party, where they have agreed on some of the terms for organizing the election. So it seems at this point to be more serious than past talk. That being said, it's not likely to bring sweeping political change, partly because Mohammed Abbas might be the only credible candidate for president.

And why is it that Mr. Abbas is the only credible candidate here?

It's partly by design within his party, within Fatah, he has refused to name a successor, despite his advancing age. He's been known to cut down people who get to be too influential within the party who start to look like they pose some kind of credible challenge to him. And so he has blocked the opportunity for someone to rise up within his own party. Hamas, on the other hand, which is sort of the main opposition party in the Palestinian territories, the leader of the group, Ismail Haniyeh, if you look at polls, he generally polls ahead of Mahmoud Abbas in a presidential race, might narrowly eke out a victory. But it's not clear if Hamas is even going to field a candidate in this election. They're already in charge of Gaza. It's unlikely that Hamas will want to add responsibility to that by taking control of the Palestinian Authority. So they might sit out the presidential election and use this simply as an opportunity to win some seats in the parliament to regain a foothold in the west bank, where they've largely been frozen out for the past decade. And the only name that consistently excites voters is Marwan Barghouti, who is also a prominent member of Fatah, but someone who is seen as above the fray, outside of the petty political disputes of the past 15 years, seen as a unifying figure by many Palestinians. But the reason he's been able to stay above the fray is because he's been in an Israeli prison for the past decade and a half. He was convicted of murder for organizing attacks during the second intifada. He's serving multiple life sentences in prison.

So how do Palestinians feel about Mr. Abbas's increasingly lengthy leadership?

They're unhappy about it, to put it mildly. Abbas, aside from the fact that he has been in power for a long time and the fact that he is extremely old at this point, he's seen as both very autocratic and very aloof. He spends large chunks of time outside of the Palestinian territories, seems not to be in touch with what's happening in large parts, even of the West Bank. So if you look at polls, about 2/3 of Palestinians would like him to resign. 75% of them support the call for new elections, even though a much smaller number actually believe the elections will take place. So there's great enthusiasm for him to go, but there's not much enthusiasm about who might replace him or about the main political parties.

So in that sense, it would be easy for Mr. Abbas to run this election, romp to victory, claim a fresh mandate, and take matters up with an administration in America. Something that hasn't been easy in recent years.

No, it hasn't been. It didn't start out so bad. It's hard to remember at this point, but the relationship between Donald Trump and the Palestinians was okay for the better part of Trump's first year in office. Mahmoud Abbas went to the White House in May of 2017. He met with Donald Trump, and he came out saying he felt hopeful about the new administration. The break really came in December of 2017. That's when Trump decided to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and to move the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The United States finally and officially recognized Jerusalem as the true capital of Israel. Today, we follow through on this recognition and open our embassy in the historic and sacred land of Jerusalem. For the Palestinians, who, of course, also claim Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, the status of the city has always been something that should be worked out in a final agreement with the Israelis. And so they saw Trump's move as prejudging the status of Jerusalem. And from there, relations with the Palestinians just went from bad to worse. Trump cut off all American aid to the Palestinian Authority and also to the United nations agency that supports Palestinian refugees. He closed the Palestinian diplomatic mission in Washington. And then, of course, last year came out with his peace plan, his idea for ending the Israeli Palestinian conflict, which was seen as hopelessly biased in favor of the Israelis. And so, after all of that, Mahmoud Abbas very much looking forward to starting anew and hopes he'll find a closer ally with Biden.

And what's your take on that? Will he?

Well, there will certainly be, and there has already been a shift in policy and a shift in tone. The Biden administration has said it would like to resume aid to the Palestinians. It would like to reopen diplomatic ties with them. Certainly, there will be a rhetorical shift on things like where the Trump administration refused to criticize the growth of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Biden will certainly go back to criticizing that, as past American presidents have. So, yes, there will be a change, and it will be a warmer relationship. But it's not going to be a complete reversal of the Trump administration's policy towards Israel and Palestine. We had an early example of that with the status of Jerusalem, which Tony Blinken, the newly confirmed secretary of state, was asked about at his confirmation hearing. Do you agree that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and do you commit that the United States will keep our embassy in Jerusalem?

Yes and yes.

Thank you.

And the question of Jerusalem and the embassy, it gets at the larger issue here for the Biden administration when it comes to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, which is that even if the administration wants to wade into diplomacy here, the conditions are just not amenable to it. You have the dysfunction and the schism within Palestinian politics. You have a long period of right wing governance in Israel that shows no signs of ending. So the conditions are really not there for a major diplomatic push. And I think the Biden administration, which has no end of problems to confront both at home and abroad, is not going to have the time or the inclination to wade too deeply into Israeli Palestinian diplomacy when it seems like there's no hope of that diplomacy succeeding.

Thanks very much for joining us, Greg.

Thank you.

The promise of so called cultured or lab grown meat is clear. The carnivore satisfying taste and texture of meat without any animal suffering and at much lower costs to the environment. Late last year, Singaporean regulators were the first to approve cultured meat for public sale.

Singapore cultured chicken from the US Firm.

Eatjust has met the city state's safety.

Standards for what's called novel food, but.

It'S been a long time coming. Growing meat from animal cells has proved tricky to scale up cheaply and it's hard to convince meat lovers to love the lab grown kind, especially if its taste and mouth feel aren't just so. But there's a big market of less fussy eaters that might be an easier sell.

Humans aren't the only meat consumers on the planet. Our pets also eat a lot of meat.

Sophia Caldera writes for the Economist.

And people who own pets are significantly more likely to be vegan or vegetarian. So some of those people are quite interested in having options for their animals that feel both humane and able to meet the dietary needs of the animal and also don't involve the killing of any other animals.

When you say meat made in a lab made in addition, what do you mean?

The company takes a cell sample from an animal. It could be a blood sample, it could be a skin biopsy and they use it to get stem cells and to induce those cells to proliferate in essentially a vat of other chemicals and of amino acids and the kinds of things that the cells need to make copies of themselves. So they are inducing the cells to grow in this slurry. Of the companies in this space, some of them are making a product that is much closer to what you would recognize as meat, and some of them are making a product that is based more around recreating the proteins that you typically see in animal cells.

And is the process of trying to go down those two different directions different in the lab?

It's quite different in the lab. So at Bond Pet Foods, which is the company pursuing this strategy, what they do is sequence the genome of a chicken, and what they're looking for is the genetic code of the proteins that make up most of the nutritional content of that chicken cell. And then what they do is insert the genetic code of those proteins into yeast cells. And this is a well refined strategy that people use to make pharmaceutical products like human growth hormone and insulin. So you can use the yeast cell essentially as a little factory to produce the proteins that a chicken would ordinarily produce, and then you are refining the proteins that you've made and using those to add nutritional value to a food that would otherwise be made out of plants or other materials.

What about the other methods for making cultured meat?

So the other two companies that we've looked at, one of them is making its own cell product, which is actually from a mouse. And so they harvest the skin cells of the mouse and then turn those into a stem cell line, which can be more easily induced to multiply for quite a long time and produce large quantities of this cell slurry in a vat of other materials that they then turn into pet foods. The other company is working with two producers of animal tissue products and they are going to make pet foods with chicken and seafood components.

Um, the way you describe this doesn't sound hugely appetizing.

Well, the animals who've tasted it seem to have enjoyed it so far. Two of these companies, because Animals and Bond Pet Foods have both tried out their treats on cats and dogs, respectively, in the last two years. And both companies actually included a founder's pet among their trial subjects. Wild Earth, the third company, has gone one step further, and their co founder promised me that any food they put on the market, he would have tried first. And in fact, he's already created an ad in which he eats a pet food made out of cultured fungal proteins that they currently sell for dogs.

So aside from the desires of vegan and vegetarian pet owners. What are the merits of giving pets these kinds of foods?

Well, there's a lot of excitement around the potential environmental benefits. A 2017 study estimated that dogs and cats actually are responsible for a quarter or more of the environmental impacts of producing meat in the US and when you're able to move that process into a labor, you can save not just on the carbon dioxide emissions, but also on the land use and the water use ordinarily required for animal agriculture.

Sophia, thank you very much for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. If you like us, give us a rating on Apple Podcasts and you can subscribe to the Economist at economist. Com intelligenceoffer. The link is in the show Notes. See you back here tomorrow.