The Politics of Covid-19 Vaccine Distribution and Recognition

Abstract

With COVAX touted as the only platform that is built on equity and fairness, there is growing discontent and concern that the platform is falling short of its goals as COVID ravages across multiple countries. There are two serious issues that we address here. Firstly, COVID distribution principles and mechanisms need to be rethought in terms of a shift from private to global interests with a focus on prioritizing deliveries. Secondly, with multiple vaccines present, it is vital that countries recognize all of them, once proven safe and effective, to prevent any form of vaccine apartheid and discrimination.

Between rules and resistance: moving public health emergency responses beyond fear, racism and greed

“…While Omicronrelated travel restrictions were particularly unjustified, other examples during COVID-19 and past epidemics suggest that decisions to implement travel restrictions tend to be driven by fear of contagion and electoral blowback, economic motivations, and even inherently racist assumptions about low and middle-income countries (LMICs), rather than by evidence, fairness or legal obligation. [1][2][3][4] It is therefore unclear what role, if any, careful legal and ethical analyses (where the former often…”

“…Yet, when travel bans were imposed in a broadly discriminatory manner against southern African countries in response to the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant in late 2021, considerations of law, ethics or science did not appear to guide politicians’ decisions. While Omicron-related travel restrictions were particularly unjustified, other examples during COVID-19 and past epidemics suggest that decisions to implement travel restrictions tend to be driven by fear of contagion and electoral blowback, economic motivations, and even inherently racist assumptions about low and middle-income countries (LMICs), rather than by evidence, fairness or legal obligation 1–4. It is therefore unclear what role, if any, careful legal and ethical analyses (where the former often codifies the latter) have to play in guiding decision making around travel restrictions during a public health emergency.…”

Availability and prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccines among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and kidney failure during the height of the pandemic: a global survey by the International Society of Nephrology

“…However, the achievement of equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines has been hindered by multiple factors such as availability, vaccine hesitancy and acceptability. Given the stark global inequities in access to vaccination against COVID-19 in general, 18 and the heightened vulnerability of patients living with advanced CKD and with KFRT in particular, advocacy is urgently required to achieve equitable access to vaccination. The current status of access to vaccination among patients with CKD and KFRT globally is unknown.…”

Engaging stakeholders to identify gaps and develop strategies to inform evidence use for health policymaking in Nigeria.

“…Following years of apparent progress in promoting the uptake and utilization of evidence into policy making, the pandemic has demonstrated that the production of scienti c evidence is a necessary but not su cient ingredient to promote evidence informed policymaking [11][12][13]. For example, despite the evidence that optimal vaccination rates across all countries would be a signi cant mitigator of the pandemic thus should be a priority pursuit, many high income countries have resorted to vaccine hoarding and border restrictions which are far less effective and could pose economic challenges [14][15][16]. Similarly, in many LMICs like Nigeria, local epidemiological and social science evidence were ignored by policymakers in favour of contextually ineffective lockdowns, which were excessively coercive yet with minimal compliance [11,13].…”