Vaccine Apartheid
By: Nhan Phan
The COVID-19 pandemic is an event that exposed the deep levels of social inequity and poor distribution of resources on a global scale. This pandemic also put a spotlight on the ever-increasing individualism of countries and nations that we see evident in the world today through the race to procure vaccinations, medicine, and other essential resources. In a way, I feel like we could have seen this coming.
Individualism, by its literal definition, means “the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.” We have seen examples of individualism throughout history before. The term itself was first coined by the French in the 19th century, describing the concept of egoism, for the individual rather than the collective. It should be no surprise that colonialism and imperialism both sprouted from one’s individualistic needs to gain land territory as a show of power and geographical dominance. Colonialism was built on extraction based on ideas of cultural superiority that made solidarity unthinkable for dominant countries. By understanding the concept of competition in this context, we can get a deep insight into the discrepancies and inequalities plaguing the global pandemic response today.
Early on in the pandemic, we saw the smallest scale of what eventually is the way vaccinations are distributed across the world today. People were stockpiling toilet paper, wheat, rice, and other resources for themselves. Many were taking more than they needed; some were left with nothing. This competitiveness and individualistic example is the perfect metaphor for vaccine distribution today: richer nations order more than they need and poorer, financially sub-optimal countries are left to negotiate for what’s left. A BMJ article exploring the political economy of COVID-19 explained, “Canada could afford to reduce the risk that some vaccines may not be proved efficacious and the risk of production delays by ordering five times more vaccine doses than it needed.” The term for this phenomenon is called ‘vaccine apartheid.’ Fundamentally, this competitive political global economy disregards the need for global collaboration and the shared values that the WHO aimed to uphold so early on in the pandemic. Instead, this competitiveness undermined global solidarity in the response to the virus, increased the financial inequality gaps between nations (especially disadvantaged at-risk nations) and essentially, benefitted the rich more than the poor. This competitiveness is one of the main reasons the world failed to respond quickly and effectively to the pandemic.
A theory that would mostly and accurately depict nations’ attitude to current resource distribution would be the Tragedy of the Commons, popularized by Garrett Hardin in 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons describes the situation in which people, with access to shared resources, act in their own interests and ultimately deplete the resource. This scenario is certainly true with the natural resources in the world today (fishes, natural game, etc.); it is also accurately depicting global access to vaccines and medicine. All countries have their own interests but it is the lack of solidarity and global collaboration that created the discrepancies that we see evident. Many have plentiful access to the vaccine and others are left fighting to find one.
A report conducted by the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR) said, “a ‘toxic cocktail’ of dithering and poor coordination means warning signs went unheeded.” So, how could we have seen this coming, and more importantly: how could we have faced the situation better? The IPPPR report claimed poor global communication, delayed coordination, and a huge wave of misinformation and disinformation was the blame for the poor global pandemic response that killed 3.3 million people worldwide. We knew the inequality gap between rich and poor nations as well as between the rich and poor parts of the population within these countries as well; we knew that the bottom 90 or so countries judging by the GDP could not afford vaccines at the same rate richer nations can. The top rich nations all have the capacity to redistribute their resources to poorer nations earlier on in the stages of vaccine distribution but failed to do so. Moreover, richer nations ignored African nations’ strategies for an effective pandemic response given their experience with containing HIV, Ebola, and Rift Valley fever. Yet, countries still did not listen and still did not see this problem coming.
Will McAvoy once said in The Newsroom, “the first step in solving any problem is to acknowledge there is one.” By understanding the political economy of COVID-19, we could have devised a global economic agreement in which common benefits and collaborative global progress would be prioritized over the individual needs of one’s country and the hampering of global solidarity in response. This agreement should cover the basics in dealing with pandemics like the funding of global vaccine production and distribution strategies, patent waivers, humanitarian aid, global lockdown-response strategies as well as strategies with reporting data and global coordination. There would also need to be a global redistribution of COVID vaccines as well as testing kits, medical gear, and all other resources relevant. Joe Biden is leading the pack with his initiative to reroute 70 million vaccine doses to several nations. The IPPPR report also stated a possible solution, “Rich and well-vaccinated countries should provide the 92 poorest territories in the COVAX scheme with at least one billion doses by September 1, and more than two billion by mid-2022.” All in all, global cooperation is needed to nip this pandemic to the bud in more ways than one; we need to prevent this vaccine apartheid from further worsening itself.
