IT WAS always a fear, but there were those too who warned of its inevitability. “Vaccine Nationalism,” whereby countries prioritise their own vaccine needs has hovered ominously over the response to the Covid-19 pandemic even before the first vaccines passed clinical trials and were scheduled for roll out.
While in the main the world’s leading health experts might be unanimous in their belief that “no-one is safe until everyone is safe,” there was always a sense that somewhere along the line such calls for a universal approach to vaccine distribution would be drowned out by the cries of “me first” by certain nations.
Even a cursory glance across the current international news headlines suggests that this is now well underway. From vaccine rivalry between Asian giants, China and India, to calls for the European Union (EU) to limit vaccine exports and other countries scrambling to sign up to supply chains wherever they can, the danger now is a free for all, out of which the pandemic could prove to be the only winner.
Yesterday it was Germany’s health minister Jens Spahn who became the latest senior politician to add their weight to the distribution controversy after he supported EU proposals to introduce restrictions on vaccines as tensions grew with AstraZeneca and Pfizer over sudden supply cuts just a month after the bloc started vaccinating citizens.
An export limitation for vaccines produced in the EU would “make sense,” Spahn said in a television interview. He insisted too that those supplies leaving the EU, “need a licence, so we know at least what’s produced in Europe and what leaves Europe, where it goes, and if there’s fair distribution”.
Spahn’s remarks came as European authorities faced increasing pressure as the EU’s sluggish inoculation campaigns threaten to prolong recession-inducing lockdowns.
It was last Friday that AstraZeneca told the 27-country EU it could not meet supply targets for its vaccine up to the end of March. It was a further blow to the bloc’s pandemic efforts after Pfizer, which manufactures a vaccine in partnership with the German company BioNTech, announced that it was temporarily reducing deliveries to the EU until late January in order to make changes to its production site in Belgium to increase manufacturing.
Despite Pfizer’s assurance that deliveries were expected to ramp up again beginning the week of February 15 some EU leaders were angry and tensions between them and the companies have since only escalated.
According to an EU official who spoke to Reuters, AstraZeneca had received an upfront payment of 336 million euros when the EU sealed a deal with the company in August for at least 300 million doses and an option for another 100 million. The deal was the first signed by the bloc to secure Covid-19 shots.
That was after the United States last May secured 300 million doses for up to $1.2 billion, and Britain, also in May, secured 100 million doses for £84 million pounds.
“This is not about Europe first but about Europe’s fair share,” insisted Spahn, Germany’s health minister. He said he understood that there were production problems, “but then they must affect everyone in the same way”.
While some will see the EU as only doing what any government – or bloc – would do in looking out for the safety and wellbeing of its citizens, others point to the fact that vaccine supply and distribution has never been on a level playing field from the start.
As early as last November a warning from the People’s Vaccine Alliance, a coalition including Oxfam, Amnesty International and Global Justice Now, reported that rich nations, home to 14 per cent of the global population, had bought 53% of the total stock of the most promising vaccines.
According to Oxfam, Britain, the EU, US, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, Hong Kong, Macau, New Zealand, Israel and Kuwait have acquired more than half of these potential doses.
The UK alone has secured enough to cover nearly three times its population. The EU and the US could immunise almost all of their inhabitants twice with the number of vaccine doses they have reserved once in receipt. Canada, meanwhile, has bought enough to vaccinate its population anywhere between four and five times over.
This say observers is vaccine nationalism in operation, though it can take various forms. At its most obvious it clearly means putting your own nation’s vaccine needs ahead of others, to the detriment of others. This might be because of hoarding supplies. Then there is the issue of rich nations that have already pre-purchased the bulk of vaccines meaning other nations will have to buy from them.
While there may be a certain inevitability to nations’ desires to protect themselves first, such decisions have consequences for all as World Health Organisation chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has made clear.
“New research outlines that global competition for vaccine doses could lead to prices spiking exponentially in comparison to a collaborative effort such as the COVAX Facility,” warned
Ghebreyesus referring to the global initiative that brings together governments and manufacturers to ensure eventual COVID-19 vaccines reach those in greatest need.
“It would also lead to a prolonged pandemic as only a small number of countries would get most of the supply. Vaccine nationalism only helps the virus,” Ghebreyesus added.
And as the World Economic Forum highlighted in its own warning, it’s not only the poorest who will suffer. As long as Covid-19 is not under control everywhere, the cost of the global pandemic will continue to be as high as $1.2 trillion per year, according to research by the policy making research group RAND Europe. Continued disruption to the world economy, through battered supply chains and weaker demand will continue to weigh on all nations.
High-income countries and regions, including the US, the UK and the EU, are forecast to lose around $119 billion per year, until a global recovery is secured, research suggests.
Just who gets the supply of vaccines, how many and when is part of a huge ethical debate unfolding daily across the planet. But as the latest EU tension shows, in tandem there is also an increasingly political and commercial battle unfolding. One from which only the pandemic stands to gain.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
David Pratt is The Herald's Contributing Foreign Editor
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel