Well we haven't for the last year so the evidence suggests otherwise.....but surely we can do both? Vaccinate the vulnerable in the 3rd world and also give boosters to others.......at the same time.
That doesn't change the fact that poor countries haven't had access to vaccines. The data is in the link I posted.It is not clear if the problem in South Africa is lack of vaccines... or lack of uptake.
South Africa has 40% of the population vaccinated, enough coverage so far for any HCWs and the most vulnerable who want the vaccine.
South Africa asked Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer Inc. to suspend delivery of Covid-19 vaccines as it now has enough stock, an illustration of how plunging demand is undermining the country’s rollout ahead of a potential fourth wave of infections.
“We have over 16 million doses in country, or more than 150 days at present consumption,” Nicholas Crisp, deputy director-general of the Department of Health, said by text message Wednesday. “It makes no sense to stockpile and risk expiry when others are desperate for supplies.”
South Africa Asks J&J, Pfizer to Stop Sending Vaccines
South Africa asked Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer Inc. to suspend delivery of Covid-19 vaccines as it now has enough stock, an illustration of how plunging demand is undermining the country’s rollout ahead of a potential fourth wave of infections.www.bloomberg.com
It does mean that variants of concern can emerge from sources other than those particular countries.That doesn't change the fact that poor countries haven't had access to vaccines. The data is in the link I posted.
We are vaccinating people who have almost no risk of serious illness or death while there are hundreds of millions of people who are highly vulnerable who have had no access to vaccines. The top tow thirds of countries have consumed 50 times more vaccines than the bottom one third. It's like giving life jackets to people who can swim and are still on the boat rather than people who can't swim are in the water.It does mean that variants of concern can emerge from sources other than those particular countries.
So I don't know how it is a vindication of the WHO stance given that the variant emerged in a country with enough vaccines to cover its priority citizens?
Where would working people be if employers didn't give them jobs. Where would the poor be if the rich didn't pay taxes? Where would the old be if the young didn't pay their pensions and fund their healthcare?What access would poor countries have if wealthier nations hadn't developed them?
We've consumed billions of vaccines and COVAX has given out 550 million, a pittance. COVAX also relies on charitable donations to fund much of their work.COVAX has sent 550 million vaccine doses free to poorer countries, with multiples of that number to be delivered.
So what?The vaccines were paid for and developed by richer countries.
I think every life is of equal value.Countries have a primary duty to their own citizens.
Not to let them catch up, just to vaccinate their over 65's and vulnerable. It's in our interest unless we want constant waves of variants.What wealthy country is going to risk lockdowns and restrictions and severe economic consequences by stopping to vaccinate its own citizens, to let poorer countries catch up?
Why? The outcome is the same.If wealthy \ powerful countries were hoarding vaccines, not using them, and sitting back letting this rip through countries and using the vaccines
as a power play, that would be a different situation.
They are using them on citizens who are at almost zero risk of serious illness or death while healthcare systems in under developed countries are being overwhelmed. There is no moral justification for it. None. It is shameful and despicable and I'm surprised and disappointed that you're defending it.But they are using the vaccines on their own citizens while assisting poorer countries to vaccinate their priority citizens via COVAX.
The EU has 800 million doses delivered, the US 550 million doses delivered. Who is this 'we' exactly?We are vaccinating people who have almost no risk of serious illness or death while there are hundreds of millions of people who are highly vulnerable who have had no access to vaccines. The top tow thirds of countries have consumed 50 times more vaccines than the bottom one third. It's like giving life jackets to people who can swim and are still on the boat rather than people who can't swim are in the water.
Where would working people be if employers didn't give them jobs. Where would the poor be if the rich didn't pay taxes? Where would the old be if the young didn't pay their pensions and fund their healthcare?
Would the rich countries be as rich if they were exploiting the resources of poor countries quite as much?
We've consumed billions of vaccines and COVAX has given out 550 million, a pittance. COVAX also relies on charitable donations to fund much of their work.
So what?
I think every life is of equal value.
Not to let them catch up, just to vaccinate their over 65's and vulnerable. It's in our interest unless we want constant waves of variants.
This is as basic as abolishing slavery even though it had economic consequences for rich countries. I'm sure the same arguments were made then.
Why? The outcome is the same.
They are using them on citizens who are at almost zero risk of serious illness or death while healthcare systems in under developed countries are being overwhelmed. There is no moral justification for it. None. It is shameful and despicable and I'm surprised and disappointed that you're defending it.
'We', the richest 2/3 of the world, have consumed 50 times more vaccine than the poorest 1/3. If you think that's right then we'll have to agree to differ.The EU has 800 million doses delivered, the US 550 million doses delivered. Who is this 'we' exactly?
550 million COVAX doses does not seem like a pittance to me.
There is no moral ground to do so but given that we'll look after ourselves first it's inevitable that we'd vaccinate our vulnerable cohorts first. The problem is that we then vaccinated those who were at almost no statistical risk of serious illness or death while those in other countries who were at a very high risk remained unvaccinated.If every life is of equal value, on what moral grounds do you justify that the EU \ US should have vaccinated any of their citizens first ahead of someone elsewhere in a worse clinical condition? Should there have been a WHO master list of cohorts globally?
Yes, countries have duties to their own citizens but we weren't protecting our younger citizens from the same risk as those in poor countries were exposed to. We'd already protected our vulnerable. That was a done deal.Every life is of equal value, right, but what does that mean exactly?
If every life is of equal value, on what moral grounds can Ireland justify spending X on an expensive cancer treatment for 1 person when the same money in the Third World could save 10 (younger) lives?
Or spending money on flood defence to protect properties and businesses, while other countries face floods that kill thousands?
How can we spend money on sending more Irish kids to college, when some kids somewhere in the world don't even get to secondary school?
Countries have duties and responsibilities to their own citizens.
The argument against the abolition of slavery was an economic one. The argument against sharing our vaccines in an equitable way is also an economic one as there is no medical argument for what we have done. And the 'not of our making' thing is questionable. We in the rich world are the ones consuming the resources and producing the pollution that is driving the climate destruction that caused zoonotic transmission of diseases.To compare this with slavery, where countries deliberately went to less developed countries and took away people TO not giving out vaccines in a pandemic not of our making ... is intellectually and morally without foundation. It's so far from reality it actually diminishes and underplays what slavery was.
Exactly; it's all about cost.Given that some European countries are going into lockdown, curfew etc to protect their healthcare systems from being overwhelmed, and here in Ireland we are on the edge ... this is not a cost free decision.
Sure, it's not a slam dunk, just because that's exactly what's happened so far it doesn't mean it will definitely happen again. It's just really really likely that it will happen again.Also, the argument that if we boost in the EU \ US there won't be enough vaccines elsewhere in the next months for the vulnerable - considering the upscale in vaccine capacity - isn't a slam dunk either.
Yes, we should be helping with that too.It's not just about the vaccines, it is also about the delivery capacity and uptake in those countries.
Okay, but your morally is based on looking after number one. I find that a strange moral construct.So I reject the argument on moral grounds,
South Africa is not part of the bottom third.and as can be seen with reference to South Africa, on practical grounds it is not as persuasive as it appears.
So your argument is that we shouldn't do it because it might not be in our interest. Again, I find that to be a strange moral construct.It's not the case that if we give the booster vaccines to COVAX, there won't be VOCs. There may be less VOCs but our population will be less protected to those that do emerge.
That IS weird.I can't link for some reason .
The usage\distribution of the vaccine that we produced is not a right\wrong thing.'We', the richest 2/3 of the world, have consumed 50 times more vaccine than the poorest 1/3. If you think that's right then we'll have to agree to differ.
There is no moral ground to do so but given that we'll look after ourselves first it's inevitable that we'd vaccinate our vulnerable cohorts first. The problem is that we then vaccinated those who were at almost no statistical risk of serious illness or death while those in other countries who were at a very high risk remained unvaccinated.
This isn't just by view, it's the view of the World Health Organisation.
Yes, countries have duties to their own citizens but we weren't protecting our younger citizens from the same risk as those in poor countries were exposed to. We'd already protected our vulnerable. That was a done deal.
The argument against the abolition of slavery was an economic one. The argument against sharing our vaccines in an equitable way is also an economic one as there is no medical argument for what we have done. And the 'not of our making' thing is questionable. We in the rich world are the ones consuming the resources and producing the pollution that is driving the climate destruction that caused zoonotic transmission of diseases.
Exactly; it's all about cost.
Sure, it's not a slam dunk, just because that's exactly what's happened so far it doesn't mean it will definitely happen again. It's just really really likely that it will happen again.
Yes, we should be helping with that too.
Okay, but your morally is based on looking after number one. I find that a strange moral construct.
South Africa is not part of the bottom third.
So your argument is that we shouldn't do it because it might not be in our interest. Again, I find that to be a strange moral construct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?