WEEK 12 Reading - Ezekiel et al.

Vaccine nationalism

• governments securign large deals with big pharm companies to prioritize domestic vaccination, sometimes purchasing doses far exceeding their populations needs

• this disadvantages low and middle income countires who may go years without vaccines

cosmopolitanism vs nationalism

radical cosmopolitanism → naitonal broders are morally arbitrary artifacts. since people everywhere are equal, govt have no moral permission to favour thier own citizens if it deviates from a globally fair distribution of vaccines

Radical nationalism → govts legitimcy rests on protecting their own residents interest, and therefore are obligated to striclty prioritize their own people, sharing vaccines with others ONLY after achieving thier domestic objective

Fair Priority for Residents Framework

• govts are allowed to retain COVID19 vaccine doses for their residents, but only doing what is necessary to maintain a non-crisis level of mortality, provided they are also implementing reasonable public health measures

• the flu-risk standard: a non crisis level of mortality is operationalized as the mortality experienced during a worse-than-average but not terrible flu season

• why focus on mortality? cuz its the most irreversable harm and its a measurable data

• why use the flu-risk standard specifically? standard is non-arbitrary, easily understandable, justifiable, and actionable with imperfect pandemic data

Objections to FPR Framework (1)

Claim:

Vaccine nationalism and R&D investment → HIC’s argue that they are entitled to prioritizze thier residents becase they funded the R&D that made rapid vaccine development possible

Responses:

1. HIC’s already erveice benefits from their investment thorugh economic returns to big pharm. FPR permits priority while limiting quantity priority

2. Vaccine R&D is more globally collaborative; sciences across the world work on testing dat, and raw materials are from everywhere

3. wealth should not determine access to lifesaving medical resources

Objections to FPR framework (2)

Vaccine Nationalism and Taxes

• govts might argue that they are jsut providing a service taxpayers paid for

rejection

• the ability to raise taxes is. afuncion of wealth, poorer countires should not have to forfiet a claim to lifesavign medicine becasue they cant afford to stockpile vaccines

Objections for FPR framework (3)

Social/economic burdens

• coutnires that suppressed the virus thorugh severe restrictions might argue that FPR ignores thier sacrifices by only focusing on mortality

response

• it does not ask for extrme conditions permanently, but jsut to vaccinate enough people to transition back to reasonable health measures. it just asks not to vaccinate beyond what is needed to sustain that transition

objections of FPR framework (4)

efficiency

• countreis that managed COIVd competnely might argue that they should not forgo vaccines so that govts that mismanged the pandemic can have morer

response

• there is little empirical correlation between a govts pandemic management and its vaccine rollout efficiency

• also with-holding vaccines from poorer countires punishes civilians for thier govts failures