Biden would 100% be against it if it was an American company that held the patents. He'd say that we shouldn't throw the company that worked so hard to provide us with a vaccine under the buss just to save money.

Removing the patent doesn't save more people, just as many vaccines would get produced, it just shifts money from the company to the state that pays for the vaccine.

I share your cynicism, but it actually will change the vaccine equation.

Money and risk is a very material part of the equation, now that the dynamics have changed, a lot more speculative money will be available. Supply and Demand works on cash just as it does for other things.

Also I don't think it has a populist aspect.

Exporting 'already made vaccines' does have a populist risk - a lot of Americans may 'get really mad!' if the US is seen to be exporting vaccines to other places before the US is fully vaccinated, irrespective of whether their chagrin is misplaced or not, the news cycle populism may have a field day with that. And there's the contractual stuff which he cannot 'waive'.

USA has the means to produce a lot of it, Europe had the means to develop it. Doesn't make sense that USA gets to enjoy all the benefits of producing without giving Europe any credit for developing it. Why should EU share its research with USA in the future if USA doesn't want to reciprocate?

So first, Supply and Demand is not just about 'means', it's about process, risk etc.. Removing a major barrier increases potential.

Second, it's a lot to do with the 'rest of the world' not really the US.

Third, AZ was UK not Europe, J&J was Neterhlands but owned by an American firm, Pfizer/BioNTech was both, Moderna was USA. So I don't see how this is a 'Europe victim' scenario.