Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

Poor Countries Face Long Wait for Vaccines Despite Promises 235

With Americans, Britons and Canadians rolling up their sleeves to receive coronavirus vaccines, the route out of the pandemic now seems clear to many in the West, even if the rollout will take many months. But for poorer countries, the road will be far longer and rougher. From a report: The ambitious initiative known as COVAX created to ensure the entire world has access to COVID-19 vaccines has secured only a fraction of the 2 billion doses it hopes to buy over the next year, has yet to confirm any actual deals to ship out vaccines and is short on cash. The virus that has killed more than 1.6 million people has exposed vast inequities between countries, as fragile health systems and smaller economies were often hit harder. COVAX was set up by the World Health Organization, vaccines alliance GAVI and CEPI, a global coalition to fight epidemics, to avoid the international stampede for vaccines that has accompanied past outbreaks and would reinforce those imbalances.

But now some experts say the chances that coronavirus shots will be shared fairly between rich nations and the rest are fading fast. With vaccine supplies currently limited, developed countries, some of which helped fund the research with taxpayer money, are under tremendous pressure to protect their own populations and are buying up shots. Meanwhile, some poorer countries that signed up to the initiative are looking for alternatives because of fears it won't deliver. "It's simple math," said Arnaud Bernaert, head of global health at the World Economic Forum. Of the approximately 12 billion doses the pharmaceutical industry is expected to produce next year, about 9 billion shots have already been reserved by rich countries. "COVAX has not secured enough doses, and the way the situation may unfold is they will probably only get these doses fairly late." To date, COVAX's only confirmed, legally binding agreement is for up to 200 million doses, though that includes an option to order several times that number of additional doses, GAVI spokesman James Fulker said. It has agreements for another 500 million vaccines, but those are not legally binding.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Poor Countries Face Long Wait for Vaccines Despite Promises

Comments Filter:
  • They get a "buffer" in case something goes wrong with one of the vaccines, so they don't have to deal with the side effects etc with their less effective hospitals.
    It's quite horrid that the whole corona case is a game of "guess which will kill less people".
    Lock too much, people starve, lock too few and people die of rona, don't rush vaccine and get the two former problems getting worse and worse, rush vaccine and you might kill with it as well.

    • by olsmeister ( 1488789 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @09:46AM (#60833042)
      The approved vaccines have been through phase 1, 2 and 3 trials, with the results peer-reviewed. The odds that there is anything in them that is going to kill people is miniscule. The odds you will die from COVID-19 are much, much higher than the odds that something in one of these vaccines will kill you. The odds of COVID-19 fucking up your respiratory system for life are even higher than that.
      • by vyvepe ( 809573 )

        The approved vaccines have been through phase 1, 2 and 3 trials, with the results peer-reviewed. The odds that there is anything in them that is going to kill people is miniscule.

        They shortened phase 3 trials (which typically take 1 to 3 years) to about 5 months. That means all the side effects discovered after 5 months were not noticed. If you want to claim that it does not matter then you should provide a statistical distribution of finding side effects of potential vaccines over time. If very little potential negative consequences are found after 5 months of phase 3 trials then you have a point.

        • You can risk analysis it, though. The vaccine is necessarily less risky than the virus, which we also don't know the long term morbidities of. A pandemic respiratory virus is a pretty high risk compared to other communicable disease. Some pundits were saying they were willing to die for the economy. That's kind of stupid, but it is also pretty easy to reopen completely once we vaccinate a sufficient number of people. If we keep up surveillance testing it doesn't even have to be everybody, just enough!
          • Chemically, the Coronavirus is probably also no more dangerous than food. Just a bit of RNA (present in most food, I'm sure). Of course I am not completely serious. The precise sequence of the RNA (or mRNA) is quite important. The very fact that this particular mRNA elicits an immune response shows that it isn't normal food.

            The reality is that the fact that this is very new technology means that there are likely new and unanticipated problems. Hopefully this isn't the case. I am not arguing here that the ri

            • Oh no, food illicits an immune response too. It's just that generally reactive immune cells for that go through apoptosis to cause an anergic response or otherwise you develop a food allergy. The benefit of the mRNA vaccine is that you only make the spike proteins, vs the whole viral payload, so your potential for side effects in a vaccine is more limited than it'd be for an attenuated virus, and you don't have the same sort of issues with preservative and adjuvants that you would use with killed virus va
        • If you want to claim that it does not matter then you should provide a statistical distribution of finding side effects of potential vaccines over time

          I think we'd rather get the vaccine and let you risk death on your own, rather than waste our time arguing with angry anti-vaxxers like you.

      • by PPH ( 736903 )

        The approved vaccines have been through phase 1, 2 and 3 trials

        In poor countries? I can just see a shipment hitting their shores, the vaccines being given out and then some side effects we have not detected in rich, white populations occurring. Shades of Tuskegee.

    • Except the vaccines that rich countries are getting are different than the ones the poor countries are getting. We'll get the mRNA vaccines and they'll get the other types, which will no doubt have different side effects.
      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Maybe. I'd be surprised if that happened in any kind of systematic way though. The mRNA vaccines are easier to make, and easier to scale up production. Once India is done vaccinating their billion they and Pfizer will flood the world. The countries lower on the list might get proportionally more mRNA vaccine than the early adopters, depending on the timing of the approval for vaccines based on the other methods.

      • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        Source?

      • They are lucky. The "other" vaccines only require one dose.

  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @09:22AM (#60832966) Homepage Journal
    I'm not sure what the problem here is.

    Of course the countries that funded and created the vaccines would and should get them first.

    This just seems common sense...so, what's the article trying to say?

    • The end of the headline says what the problem is: "...despite promises"
    • by Synonymous Cowered ( 6159202 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @09:51AM (#60833066)

      Yeah, there are several things wrong with the article.

      "The virus that has killed more than 1.6 million people has exposed vast inequities between countries". Exposed? Maybe "made you finally open your eyes to it" would be correct, but not exposed.

      "as fragile health systems and smaller economies were often hit harder" On a per capita basis for both deaths and cases, the top ranks are populated by both rich and poor countries. Maybe they're less equipped to handle it, but again, what else is new? They're less equipped to handle a hurricane or an earthquake, too.

      "Of the approximately 12 billion doses the pharmaceutical industry is expected to produce next year, about 9 billion shots have already been reserved by rich countries." Been reserved, because of investment. No shock there. But it's also worth noting that the vaccine isn't something with infinite demand. People can make use of 1 or 2 doses (depending on the particular vaccine). Beyond that, the excess will probably begin making its way to other countries as part of relief efforts. It's also worth noting that 12 billion doses is enough for at least 6 billion people, and the vaccines have not yet been approved for pediatric use. So there should be plenty to go around. It's just gonna take some time. Yes, rich countries will get it first. They got refrigerators first, cars first, computers first, new drugs and medical treatments first.

      It might be ideal if the entire world had equal access to things, but welcome to reality.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        If the vaccine were being distributed based on medical need then many of the countries getting large quantities now would be waiting and many of the countries facing long delays would be getting it first.

        Some people take it for granted that capitalism is the only way to handle the distribution of goods in limited supply. Need is irrelevant, only ability to pay. That's one of the reasons why the US healthcare system doesn't work well for many people.

        As it happens though at the moment developed countries do h

      • Exposed? No. Discovered a new inequity that we haven't grown numb to yet? Yes.
    • The problem is that the virus does not respect national boundaries and a vaccine is not 100% protection. Animals cross borders at will and can carry the virus (bats and cats). Trade brings people across borders. So the rich countries getting the vaccine can not go back to normal until the whole world has. If the poor countries don't get the vaccine until two years from now, that means you have to wear a mask for two years and continue to take precautions, especially if the vaccines only prevent severe d
  • With Americans, Britons and Canadians rolling up their sleeves to receive coronavirus vaccines, the route out of the pandemic now seems clear to many in the West, even if the rollout will take many months. But for poorer countries, the road will be far longer and rougher.

    There's only enough vaccine for 50M/328M Americans, unless Trump steals more. Is that because we're not a western country, or because we're a poorer country?

    • That 50M is just the first batch, and the situation isn't any different in Europe. Vaccination starts early January, but they don't expect to get around to the non-priority groups until August or so. Seems that only the UK and Canada ordered plenty of doses well ahead of time. [nature.com]
      • Canada ordered a lot fo doses but most of these are to be received in a few months as well therefore the current target for non-priority groups appears to be close to August 2021 as well. In fact according to schedules I saw, Canada appears to be about 3 months late compared to the USA to get to the point where say, 70% of the population will be vaccinated.
        Most doses ordered by Canada will end-up in poor countries in 2022 or 2023 anyways. So far only BioNTech is approved, Moderna could be close. And then pe

      • So in short, only the UK and Canada have a process which values human life, and an economy which support that process? Interesting.

        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Canada, the UK and Australia and to a lesser extent the EU seem to have mostly pre-ordered. As in, take my money, please make me a vaccine.

          The US preordered a bit, but is mostly depending on options. As in, make me a vaccine and I promise I'll buy it.

          Naturally you fill your paid up preorders first. But if you back the wrong kickstarter....

      • by cusco ( 717999 )

        The last that I had heard the US gov't had only purchased 100 million doses. The contract offer for more was allowed to expire after the election.

  • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @09:32AM (#60833006) Homepage Journal

    Why is putting the population of your own country first such a problem? I don't see the issue here.

    If someone were to *exclude* the population of another country entirely, that would be an issue, but the US definitely does NOT do that.

    The US is first in the world to give aid during a crisis - hurricanes and earthquakes and such. We sent an aircraft carrier to Haiti to act as landing zone for supplies and to desalinate water and give it away for free. Our military helped keep the peace for a few months. ...and then we went home. We didn't conquer a nation that had fallen on hard times, we didn't add to our territories, nothing.

    Vaccinations are a slightly different story, in that there are limited resources at the start, so someone has to be first and someone has to be last.

    Also, since the first world countries are the ones with the production capacity, it makes sense to get them healed up first to rev up their economies so that they can *afford* to make vaccines and send them to the rest of the world. ...or would it be more humanitarian to keep the economy of the first world down in the dumps while we vaccinate poor countries?

    I guess I don't know the definition of humanitarian.

    I don't see a problem with putting the population of your own country first, maybe someone can explain it to me?

    • Here's the simple ethical problem. Consider two people. One has a risk of death from COVID-19 that is 0.3%. The other has a risk of death from COVID-19 that is 3%. Who gets the vaccine first?
  • by DeplorableCodeMonkey ( 4828467 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @10:00AM (#60833112)

    But now some experts say the chances that coronavirus shots will be shared fairly between rich nations and the rest are fading fast.

    The most basic truth about obligations to other people is that our obligations radiate out in priority based on relationship and association to us. A parent's first duty is to their children, not to the neighbor and their children. Once that is satisfied, their obligation is to their neighbor's welfare and not the guy on the other side of town they have never met. Once that's met, they may proceed to the guy on the other side of the town. Repeat all the way out to "a country you will never voluntarily visit."

    This universalism is unnatural and perverse. It teaches us that the US Government should be morally concerned with the idea that Americans might get better access-with our own money at work--than poor villagers in a dirt poor foreign country. Intelligent observers might note that this attitude is also completely corrosive to the idea that governments are instituted by the people to represent them and their interests and safeguard their wellbeing. A national government that claims to be "no less concerned with the welfare" of another people than its own is in fact "no more concerned" with the welfare of its own people than a foreign and distant people.

    • I guess part of this depends on whether or not you consider the *moral and ethical* wellbeing of your people to be part of what you're supposed to safeguard as a public official. But part of the answer to that is to get the people representing us to stop making stupid-assed promises to people in other countries, so that we're not bound in those obligations.

  • Vaccines that will be produced, will be used, the fact that many countries have paid for more than they'll use, doesn't mean they'll throw the rest to trash. Eventually poorer countries will receive vaccines someone else already paid for but no longer needs. How "fair" this is remains debatable, but what else should be done? Should rich countries perhaps delay vaccinations until the poorest find money to afford some for themselves? The situation as it is, is the fairest it will get, not much point in compla
  • Honor dies where interest lies.

  • For once, the wealth gap will apportion medical aid according to need. We rich types are twits who can't figure out how to deal with communicable diseases. The poorer countries are prepared, know what to do in an epidemic, and have quite good medical systems for dealing with it.

    The EU and US have about 28 times the COVID deaths per capita Africa has.

    • you're funny, poor shitholes don't have the high percentage of old people and they have plenty of other things to die from.

  • In reality it's a blessing for them, as the vaccins are not gonna help...
  • "Of the approximately 12 billion doses the pharmaceutical industry is expected to produce next year, about 9 billion shots have already been reserved by rich countries." If two doses per person are required, that would cover 4.5 billion people. There are about 1.3 billion people in developed countries. I'm not sure how those numbers square up. Maybe the rich countries like to hoard shots unnecessarily, or the reporting isn't quite complete.

    The other big hole in the reporting is about China. There are s [cnn.com]

    • Bingo. And in doing so, China will show that it's far more on par with being a first world country and world leader. It will have shown it's ability to rapidly develop and produce more complex goods, such as vaccines. When it happens too, the resurgence of conspiracy theories against China will be in mass. That China created this whole thing just to appear benevolent and a world leader... the future sure looks very funny and interesting...

  • No! Really? OK. Let's not give the public access to vaccines until every essential worker in the world in vaccinated first. That would be maximum fairness.
  • "It's simple math," said Arnaud Bernaert ... Of the approximately 12 billion doses ... about 9 billion shots have already been reserved by rich countries.

    Uhh, which part of the math is simple when global population is 7.8 billion?

    • Everyone needs 2 doses. Also some doses will likely have a certain amount of failure. Some vaccines need to be kept extremely cold and likely will have a non-miniscule amount that spoil.

  • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @12:48PM (#60833886) Journal
    I've said it before and I'm saying it again now: Pfizer and Moderna should share the process to produce the vaccine with every pharmaceutical company in the world, immediately, so that as many of them as possible can start producing and distributing it. This is too important to our entire species to make into a 'business decision' or to become politicized.
  • by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @01:49PM (#60834176)

    Humans band together for the benefits thereof, not to be martyrs to others without regard to their own.
    There is no obligation to remediate the chosen failures of other societies. Charity is fine but it's called "charity" because it is not compulsory.

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Working...