Vaccine nationalism and internationalism: perspectives of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in the United Kingdom

Abstract

BackgroundVaccine nationalism has become a key topic of discussion during the development, testing, and rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. Media attention has highlighted the ways that global, coordinated access to vaccines has been limited during the pandemic. It has also exposed how some countries have secured vaccine supply, through bilateral purchase agreements and the way pharmaceutical companies have priced, negotiated, and delivered these supplies. Much of the focus of this debate has been on the vaccine supply ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, but the voices of public opinion have been more limited.MethodsWe explore the concepts of vaccine nationalism and internationalism from the perspective of vaccine trial participants, using an empirical perspectives study that involved interviews with phase I/II COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK. We surveyed and interviewed participants between September and October 2020 about their views, motivations and experiences in taking part in the trial.ResultsFirst, we show how trial participants describe national and international ideas about vaccination as intertwined and challenge claims that these positions are mutually exclusive or oppositional. Second, we analyse these viewpoints further to show that vaccine nationalism is closely connected with national pride and metaphors of a country’s scientific achievements. Participants held a global outlook and were highly supportive of the prioritisation of vaccines by global need, but many were also pessimistic that such a solution could be possible.ConclusionTrial participants constitute an informed public group, with situated public expertise that the global community could draw on as an expert opinion. We argue that vaccine nationalism is strongly attached to national character and, therefore, it is more difficult for ownership of a vaccine to be though of as international.

Higher SARS-CoV-2 Spike Binding Antibody Levels and Neutralization Capacity 6 Months after Heterologous Vaccination with AZD1222 and BNT162b2

“…Both vaccines were shown to be safe and were 95% (BNT162b2) and up to 90% (AZD1222) efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 when analyzed more than 14 days after the second dose [5,6]. Depending on local licensing and availability, some countries, such as Israel, began by immunizing predominantly with BNT162b2, while others, such as the UK or Germany, initially used homologous prime-boost regimens with either AZD1222 or BNT162b2 [7][8][9]. However, clinical developments very soon led to the application of heterologous prime-boost regimens [10].…”

International Efforts and Next Steps to Advance COVID-19 Vaccines Research and Production in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

“…The current mechanisms are mainly based on soft law measures, which are not legally binding to member states, rendering the approach weak in terms of practical solutions and implementation. Moreover, under this scenario, there is a risk that vaccines are misused politically as a token payment for political support from the LMICs [28]. In this regard, we argue that the WHO should take a more proactive role in developing international agreements and policy frameworks with legally binding effects on member states that can substantially improve vaccine manufacturing capabilities in LMICs.…”

The Challenge of Reaching Undocumented Migrants with COVID-19 Vaccination

“…From the first licensing of a Coronavirus vaccine in a Western country in December 2020, there was intense competition for available supplies at the international level leading to ‘vaccine nationalism’ [ 61 , 62 ] and often strict regulation of the timing of provision of vaccine doses at national and local levels, generally with emphasis on priority for vulnerable groups at risk of severe disease (e.g., persons who are older, with certain preconditions, chronically ill or immunocompromised) and frontline health personnel and other key workers. Globally, WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts suggested a tiered system to prioritize who should receive the vaccines, and identified low-income migrant workers, irregular migrants and those unable to physically distance themselves, including those living in camps and camp-like settings, as being among priority groups for the allocation of COVID-19 vaccination [ 63 ].…”