Dire Need

No doubt developing countries would face issues in obtaining enough vaccines for their populations, so when supplies arrived earlier this year through Covax efforts, the gap in access seemingly narrowed. However, today, those countries are faced with vaccine shortages and are unsure when they will receive further aid to offer second vaccines to some, and first vaccines to others.

Bruce Aylward, an adviser from the World Health Organisation (WHO), said that 80 lower-income countries have thus far received vaccines through the program. At least 40 of those countries have already either run out of vaccines or are on the verge of running out.

Important

To bring an end to the pandemic, vaccination against the virus is essential. With slowdowns in inoculation programs, unfortunately, there is more room for problematic new variants to emerge and essentially cause infection rates to rise once again.

The cycle will continue as vaccinated people are put back at risk. Countries that do not have rich health budgets cannot afford to turn to the expensive private market for doses. If supplies are not restocked, nations will need to leave vulnerable populations of older people and health workers partially vaccinated.

According to the WHO, seven countries in Africa, including Ivory Coast, Gambia and Kenya, have used up all their Covax supply. Other countries in Asia, Latin America and beyond are close to exhausting their supplies. As a result, many of these countries are forced to slow down or halt vaccine programs.

What is Covax?

Covax was set up last year to ensure that there would be equitable access to vaccines around the world. The program was set up by the non-profit Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and the WHO.

Covax set up a global purchasing and distribution pool specifically for less-wealthy nations who may otherwise find it difficult to enter large pre-purchase vaccine deals and/or would be unable to manufacture their vaccines.

Ultimately, the goal is to deliver 1.8 billion to more than 90 lower-income countries by early 2022. Thus far, the program has shipped only close to 88 million doses – this is close to the number of doses already administered in California, Texas and New York.

What is the delay?

Covax is heavily reliant on AstraZeneca Plc’s two-dose vaccine. They are now facing delays in shipments from the vaccine’s key manufacturer, the Serum Institute of India, as the country has halted exports in an attempt to tackle the large outbreak at home.

Ivory Coast has thus far used close to 730,000 doses of AstraZeneca and now relies solely on the 100,000 Pfizer doses acquired a couple of weeks ago. To maintain the public’s faith in the vaccine program and ensure it can continue protection measures, Ivory Coast and countries in similar situations need to acquire millions of additional doses soon.

Covax rollouts in Ghana and Ivory Coast started on March 1, marking a key moment, which has been seen as a light at the end of a long tunnel. Since March, Ghana has used 90% of its doses. In preparation for delays with Covax, the country did sign pacts with several other suppliers including Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine.

However, even with extra measures in place, supply challenges have fettered deliveries. The Gambia has reportedly also run out of AstraZeneca shots and has turned to Sinopharm Group Co. to introduce the Chinese company’s vaccine this month.

Other countries in Africa: Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi and Rwanda, have used all the vaccines received through Coax. Angola, Uganda, Ethiopia and Egypt have used over 80% of their supply.

Beyond Africa

In Bangladesh, vaccination of the public has slowed close to a halt with the government turning to Russia and China to secure more supplies. Sri Lanka is awaiting health ministry approval to give people Pfizer’s vaccine as the second dose amid a shortfall in AstraZeneca shots.

In Nepal, supply shortages have slowed the process of vaccination, the country has only managed to fully vaccinate less than 3% of the population. Nepal’s health ministry director Tara Nath Pokhrel has stated, “vaccination to the entire population is a dream that is quite far off.” A sentiment that is a reflection of the current situation in most of the world’s poorer countries.

To keep up with the latest commercial news, click on commercial to get your daily dose.

The post Vaccine Shortages: A Growing Concern for Many Nations appeared first on Relawding.

It looks like Richard Branson and Elon Musk are not the only billionaires looking to tour space. Amazon’s own Jeff Bezos is launching his very own space venture called Blue Origin. The launch of its first astronaut crew to space is set to take place on July 20 on the space tourism rocket named New Shepard.

Want a ride?

New Shepard can carry up to six people at a time and is designed to ride past the edge of space. Previous test flights have seen capsules reaching altitudes of over 340,000 feet (over 100 kilometres). The capsule has large windows so passengers can look out to a once in a lifetime view. A journey would see you spend a few minutes in zero gravity before making the return to Earth.

Though the rocket has not flown with passengers yet, both the rocket and capsule have been tested dozens of times sans crew. The rocket launches vertically, with the booster detaching and returning to land at a concrete pad nearby. The capsule’s return is slowed by a set of parachutes, before softly landing in the desert.

Though ticket sales and pricing information have not been opened to the public yet, there was a public auction for a seat on the New Shepard’s very first flight. A seal online auction ran until May 19 with bids running upwards of $50,000. “We’re auctioning off the first seat to benefit our foundation Club for the Future,” a Blue Origin video said.

The Auction

Over 7,600 people from 159 countries registered for the auction for a seat on New Shepard. The winning bid was an incredible $28 million. The winning bidder will join both Bezos and his brother on New Shepard’s first human flight on July 20 of this year. This date also marks the 52nd anniversary of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin’s moon landing.

At the Beginning

In 2018, NASA selected ten companies to conduct studies and create technologies that would aid with missions to the Moon and Mars. Blue Origin was one of these companies. In 2019, NASA and Blue Origin signed a deal that allowed Blue Origin to use NASA’s test stand as NASA aims to grow the partnership with the ever-growing commercial space industry.

The Flight

On July 20 2021, New Shepard’s 11-minute automated flight will take off in Van Horn, Texas. Bezos, who is set to step down as Amazon’s chief executive officer on July 5, announced his attendance on the flight in an Instagram post: “Ever since I was five years old, I’ve dreamed of travelling to space. On July 20th, I will take that journey with my brother. The greatest adventure, with my best friend.”

Bezos has increased competition in the space tourism industry, joining his fellow ‘world’s wealthiest in the space race. Blue Origin is vying with Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies and the Richard Branson-backed Virgin Galactic Holdings to offer trips to space, with Branson’s Virgin craft also expected to launch passengers soon after from a space centre near Truth or Consequences in New Mexico.

While Bezos and Branson are competing to take passengers on short trips to the edge of space (suborbital tourism), Musk is planning on sending passengers on further, multi-day flights (orbital tourism).

Compare and Contrast

Both Bezos and Branson have developed rocket-powered spacecraft, however, the companies’ vehicles are unique in all other aspects. New Shepard launches vertically from the ground, but Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo is released mid-air and returns to Earth in a glide, landing akin to an aircraft. SpaceShipTwo flies with two pilots but New Shepard launches with no pilot.

Branson has flown a test spaceflight with a passenger onboard and still plans on holding three more spaceflight tests, with plans to start flying commercial customers in 2022.

Musk has sent 10 astronauts to the International Space Station on his spacecraft on three missions thus far. Musk is going to continue government flights and plans to launch private astronaut missions with the all-civilian Inspiration4 mission in September.

Though Blue Origin’s auction settled at $28m, a seat on a suborbital spacecraft is much cheaper. Virgin Galactic has sold reservations between $200,000 and $250,000 per ticket and more recently charged the Italian Air Force about $500,000 per ticket for a training spaceflight. Musk’s orbital flights are far more expensive than his suborbital competitors. NASA pays SpaceX around $55m per seat for flight in the International Space Station.

To keep up with the latest commercial news, click on commercial to get your daily dose.

The post Billionaires Explore Space: Bezos Joins the Crew appeared first on Relawding.

On 25 May 2020, George Floyd bought a pack of cigarettes when a store employee called the Minneapolis police under the suspicion that Floyd had used a counterfeit $20 bill. Ex-police officer Derek Chauvin restrained Floyd by pressing a knee to the man’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds while Floyd repeatedly pleaded for his life. George Floyd was pronounced dead. 17-year-old Darnella Frazier, a bystander, filmed the entirety of the event. The whole world watched her video and took action.

George Floyd’s death initiated protests against police brutality and calls for social justice reform and acknowledgement of systemic racial injustice. Finally, on April 20, 2021, the trial against Derek Chauvin concluded. Chauvin, 45, has been found guilty of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

The Trial

It is without a doubt that the trial has been one of the most closely watched cases in recent history. Before the trial began, this story has been a cursor for an overdue universal reckoning on police violence and systemic racism. Watchers rejoiced as the jury unanimously found former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin guilty on all the counts he faced over the death of George Floyd.

The verdict was delivered by Judge Peter Cahill who thanked the jury members for their “heavy-duty jury service.” Chauvin was remanded into custody and sentencing is expected in eight weeks.

The testimony throughout the trial was remarkable as witnesses for the prosecution included members of the Minneapolis police. The department’s Chief Medaria Arradondo was one of the members who testified that Chauvin’s prolonged restraint of Floyd was unreasonable and violated the department’s policies on the use of force.

Arradondo stated that the continuous restraint after Floyd remained motionless and handcuffed was “in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training and is certainly not part of our ethics or our values.”

In retaliation, Chauvin’s defence argued that there were several potential factors other than the restraint that lead to Floyd’s death, including what it said was Floyd’s enlarged heart, fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system and possibly carbon monoxide from squad car exhaust. Lead by defence attorney Eric Nelson, arguments for Chauvin aimed at stressing that he acted as a reasonable police officer would under stressful and chaotic circumstances.

The medical examiners agreed that the restraint and neck compression was more than Floyd’s body was able to take. While Floyd may have had an enlarged heart and slight exposure to fentanyl, Hennepin County’s medical examiner, Dr Andrew Baker, stated these were not the direct cause of death. Rather, the restraint leads to Floyd suffering a cardiopulmonary arrest.

“[Cardiopulmonary arrest] was caused by low oxygen levels. And those low oxygen levels were induced by the prone restraint and positional asphyxiation that he was subjected to,” testified Dr Jonathan Rich, a cardiologist.

Guilty on Three Charges

Chauvin was found guilty on all three charges brought against him:

• Unintentional second-degree murder – this is causing death without intent to do so while committing or attempting to commit a felony offence.
• Third-degree murder – this is causing death by perpetrating an act that is imminently dangerous to others with ill intentions and depraved mind, without regard to human life but without the intent to cause death.
• Second-degree manslaughter – this is causing the death of another by “culpable negligence, creating an unreasonable risk” in which the defendant intentionally takes the risk of causing death or grievous bodily harm to another individual.

As Chauvin was found guilty on all counts, he can be sentenced to a maximum of 75 years in prison.

The Jury

The jurors remain unnamed to the public. The jury comprised 12 jurors. They would report each day to the Hennepin County Government Center under intense security measures, using a private entrance to enter the court.

The jurors were given a laptop and monitor to review video footage and all exhibits that were presented during the trial. In the state of Minneapolis, the jury must come to a unanimous decision. In addition, if they are missing any single element to meet the burden of proving Chauvin’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a count, that count would receive a not-guilty verdict.

The jury came to a unanimous decision faster than anticipated. Within 10 hours, they were ready to present their verdicts.

To keep up with the latest commercial news, click on commercial to get your daily dose.

The post Guilty, Guilty, Guilty: The Derek Chauvin Trial appeared first on Relawding.

The Motion

British MPs have unanimously approved a parliamentary motion denouncing China’s treatment of Uyghurs, stating that there is in fact genocide against the people group. With more than a million people estimated to have been detained at camps in the region of Xinjiang, pressure has been growing on Boris Johnson’s government to adopt a tougher stance against the region.

Conservative MP Nusrat Ghani put forward the non-binding motion, which was approved by the House of Commons after a three-hour debate. This motion states that the Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in China’s western Xinjiang region were suffering crimes against humanity and calls upon the Chinese government to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Not that the UK government is not obligated or compelled to take action, it is however a sign of Parliament’s growing discontent towards the Chinese government’s actions or lack thereof.

Foreign Office minister Nigel Adams stated that the UK government has acknowledged the “strength of feeling” on the Uyghur crisis and this stance is important as the UK has a “history of protecting global human rights”. The vote for the motion was deemed historic, placing the UK Parliament in line with Holland, Canada and the United States of America.

Nusrat Ghani’s Stance

At the debate, Ghani stated that genocide meant intent to “destroy in whole or in part” a national, ethnic, racial or religious group and concluded that, as far as she can analyse, “all five criteria of genocide are evidenced as taking place in Xinjiang”. She continued that detainees in the camps were subject to brutal torture methods, which included electric shocks, whips and beatings with metal prods.

In addition, women in the Uyghur region were being forcefully fitted with birth control devices. Chinese government’s data is evidence of this particular torture. It shows that in 2014, over 200,000 birth control devices were inserted in women in Xinjiang and by 2018, this figure had increased by 60%.

China’s Response

Zhao Lijian, China’s ministry of foreign affairs spokesperson, has condemned the UK Parliament’s decision claiming the statements made were a “preposterous lie” by “anti-China forces” and went on to urge UK parliamentarians to “mind their own business”.

China has stated that the UK should avoid blatant interference in China’s internal affairs and that it is an insult to the country that the British MPs are referring to the situation in Xinjiang as a ‘genocide’.

International Response to China’s Actions

Stephen Kinnock of the UK Labour party argued that the party supports the motion as genocide should never be met with indifference or inaction. Casting aside the things that are happening against the Uyghur people can likely lead to a situation similar to Nazi Germany and the Rwandan genocide.

In addition, the Conservative party MPs have argued that although Parliament’s motion is non-binding, it is satisfactory in sending a clear message that the international community is united in its condemnation of the action’s taking place in China.

In February, the Canadian and Dutch parliaments also passed similar motions that described China’s actions in Xinjiang as genocide. In March, the US state department followed suit and accused China of committing crimes against humanity to the people groups in the region.

Ghani stated, “China’s attempt to intimidate parliament into silence has backfired. The elected House has spoken and chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with our international allies, the Uyghur people, and all those who have been sanctioned”. Additionally, UK Foreign Office Minister Nigel Adams concluded that passing this motion was adding pressure on Beijing through the United Nations.

China continues to deny allegations of rights abuses in the country and argues that the camps that detain Uyghur persons are tools to fight terrorism.

To keep up with the latets commercial news, click on commercial to get your daily dose.

The post UK House of Commons Recognises Uyghur Genocide appeared first on Relawding.

Caterpillars in Court

Marks & Spencer has now taken legal action against Aldi concerning the similarities in the appearances of the two cakes. M&S is claiming that the similarity leads to consumers believing the two cakes meet the same standards. M&S are concerned that Aldi will, therefore “ride on the coat-tails” of the M&S reputation.

As M&S lodged an intellectual property claim on trademark infringement with the High Court over the last week, it has become clear that the claimant wants Aldi to remove the product from sale and agree to halt the sale of anything similar in the future. The action is set to protect three trademarks of M&S’s birthday cake product, which include the supermarkets’ variations of the design.

The basis of the claim lies in the fact that the appearance, branding and packaging of Aldi’s product are so similar to that of the M&S product that consumers are confusing the two items. Also, Aldi’s cake is sold at a reduced price of £5, while M&S’s cake costs £7.

Long Live Colin

The first version of M&S’s Colin was launched around 30 years ago. The overall appearance of the product has not changed since 2004. The product has since become a staple of the M&S brand and so, by taking legal action, the company hopes to protect their “reputation for freshness, quality, innovation and value”. The cake is a sponge with milk chocolate and buttercream with its hallmark appearance comprising of chocolate sweet toppings and a smiling white chocolate face.

Colin is a part of M&S’s partnership with the Macmillan cancer charity and funds collected from the product’s sale go into fundraising. Though M&S was the first retailer to sell a caterpillar cake, the design has since become a popular design among other British supermarkets including Waitrose’s Cecil, Sainsbury’s Wiggles, Tesco’s Curly, and Asda’s Clyde the Caterpillar.

Aldi’s Response

Despite the seriousness of being faced with legal action, Aldi has shown a real sense of humour, choosing to publicly make fun of M&S and their allegations. They started by mocking M&S’s famous slogan on its social media accounts. On Twitter, the budget supermarket wrote: “This is not just any court case, this is…#FreeCuthbert” and later tweeted “Just Colin our lawyers. #FreeCuthbert”. The supermarket has since posted various satirical TikTok videos, more tweets and other social media posts.

Opinions on the Future

As previously mentioned, one of M&S’s arguments will likely be based on the fact that consumers could be confused as to the origin of Aldi’s “Cuthbert Caterpillar”, and wrongly assume that the cake originates from M&S. However, legally this may not be a strong enough argument. The aforementioned are the numerous cakes that use the word “caterpillar” to describe to consumers the type of cake that is for sale.

This indicates that the problem lies with M&S itself as legally, elements within signs that are descriptive (“Caterpillar” describing the appearance of the product) are not able to be perceived as a trademark. The legal element here is that certain words need to be kept free for all traders to use in the marketplace to avoid a monopoly over the word in any context.

Where a logo contains a descriptive word, in the case the word is “caterpillar”, consumers look to other brand elements to differentiate the origin of the cake. Here, consumers may look to the name of the caterpillar: Colin”, “Connie”, “Wiggles”, “Clyde”, “Morris” or “Cuthbert”. Therefore, the Court may compare “Colin” and “Cuthbert” and conclude whether or not the differences between the prefixes and the dominant and distinctive elements would cause consumer confusion.

As there are other caterpillar cakes in the market, the High Court may find that the average consumer is aware that there are different traders of similar cakes and would not necessarily associate M&S with every one of them.

M&S could claim that Aldi’s cake amounts to ‘passing off. This is a common-law offence in the UK that can protect any goodwill associated with unregistered rights, including the ‘get up’ or appearance of a product. To be successful, M&S would need to prove that Aldi’s caterpillar damaged or has the potential to damage, their goodwill in Colin the Caterpillar – for example, through loss of sales if customers opt for Aldi’s cheaper alternative.

Aldi was previously taken to court by the makers of Moroccanoil who claimed that the similar packaging of Aldi’s Miracle Oil hair product to their own amounted to passing off. The claim was unsuccessful as the court found that the £26 price difference between to two products would allow consumers to avoid confusion. It will be interesting to see if the High Court reached that same decision as the price difference between the two cakes is not as large.

Anyone interested in IP and IP law should keep an eye out for the progress of this case. The findings of the Court will likely clarify many trademarks and passing off questions. It will also be interesting to see if Aldi’s response to the claims will play a part in the outcome of the case.

Aldi has used social media to reach its consumer base and create a “campaign” and “rivalry” of sorts between the customers of the two supermarkets. Keep an eye on whether the Court chooses to mention this and the effects of social media use and public voices have on such matters.

To keep up with the latest commercial news, click on commercial to get your daily dose.

The post IP News: A Bug’s Life appeared first on Relawding.