'Vaccine Nationalism' vs Multilateralism: How can COVID-19 be eradicated?

Hey Pynksters :bulb:

With several Covid-19 vaccines in Phase 2 and 3 trials, global superpowers are scrambling to secure access to millions of vaccine doses of promising candidates, striking deals to secure means of inoculation for their citizens. A rush of multibillion-dollar dealmaking ensued among wealthy countries, exposing a lack of international co-operation, which threatens to leave poor nations hanging.

While the Covax Facility initiative has garnered the interest of 75 wealthier countries to support rapid, fair and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines worldwide, government stand divided by the mounting pressure to secure vaccine doses for their population.

What do you believe to be the most effective way of dealing with the ongoing pandemic: nationalism or multilateralism?

What are the advantages and drawbacks of each approach (i.e. nationalism and multilateralism)?

7 Likes

Right now I can’t see any downsides to multilateral approach and see it as most effective approach.
Nationalism is good to get a better economy starting postion and happier people but it isn’t fair on global level, it lowers reputation of the country and makes big problems in the future for multilateral organizations like WTO, WHO, UN,…

I would say that the ratio between multilateralism and nationalism depends on virus strenght, how vaccine is transfered (by plane, train, truck,…) and how fast can it be produced.

I don’t see much problems if it stays like this, vulnerable groups of people will need vaccine immediately and others can wait. It probably won’t be very hard to satisfy the demand and chances for mostly multilateral and fair approach grow very much.

If virus gets more dangerous like in april then there will be more nationalism for sure, all those initiatives leaders are now signing for fair distribution will be weaker.
It will be hard for leaders to explain why they didn’t get more vaccine if there was such an option to negotiate and basicaly killed their own people.
Producer and suppliers will get bigger portion on vaccine and rest will get what they are able to negotiate. If vaccine will be distributed by land than those countries that are on the route between producer and suppliers will get more vaccine than others.

There are much more IFs in this since covid vaccine distribution will be the biggest or atleast in top 5 logistics projects the world has seen, same as like it made one of the biggest impacts ever in medicine sector.

6 Likes

Being as CoVid is a global problem, I think it needs to be treated as such, therefore with multilateralism. I don’t think any country should be in a power struggle to say “we discovered the vaccine or cure first”. Many countries don’t have the means to even work on a way to eradicate CoVid, yet they suffer from it like everyone else. I always believe in working together and everyone getting along and this is no different.

3 Likes

I think the realist in me would lean towards nationalism for your answer to this. It’s not that I prefer that option, as with any reasonable person I’d like to imagine a fairer world where access to such important medicines are evenly dispensed or proportional to need. Unfortunately I just don’t think it’s gonna go that way im afraid.

People have elections to win after all :smirk:

7 Likes

I take heart from previous campaigns to eradicate disease, like tuberculosis or leprosy. The push to do so came from enlightened self-interest, rather than pure altruism.

Otherwise, there would be continuous reservoirs of disease dotted around the world, constantly re-seeding infections to the other parts of the world.

While pharmaceutical companies are in possession of valid patent protection on their drugs or vaccines, the governments wishing to trade or otherwise interact with third world countries will have to organise via WHO or via NGOs to distribute drugs, while paying serious money to pharmaceutical companies.

On a more optimistic note,
it is entirely possible (indeed likely) that country like Cuba will share the intellectual property rights with other countries allowing for generic production of vaccines on the much reduced timescale.

5 Likes

Several COVID vaccines are being tested in different parts of the world, so the vaccine will not be owned by a single country.
It is a discovery of all humanity, and we need to devise how we are going to ensure that everyone in the world get vaccinated.

4 Likes

I’ll tell you this, as I personally think that all these are planned actions with nationalism and with viruses and with delayed treatment (antivirus against COVID), this appeared on a large wave of protests against low wages and strikes. Now it seems like people themselves are to blame for organizing pogroms and spreading the virus! And salaries have dropped and the bulk of people are happy with any salary!
Nationalism is inflated against the backdrop of centuries-old slavery, and African Americans have always killed police officers and, accordingly opens road to the police response, although in general I do not consider the methods of the American police correct to be normal for criminals to all skin colors (after all, their guilt has not even been proven)!
And in fact, vaccines are already there and can be used. But for governments few deaths, it’s necessary to pay pensions and treat pensioners. From the virus with only old peoples disabilities with bad health die out​:grey_exclamation::bangbang::grey_exclamation::grey_exclamation::grey_exclamation::grey_exclamation::bangbang::exclamation::bulb:.
Multilateralism can also lead to chaos, first it is necessary for people return moral values ​​and affordable education, only then will the shift towards multi begin, but is it beneficial to great countries (authorities)?

4 Likes

Multilateralism will be the best but it is an open secret that every country will care for their own before looking outside. So nationalism will be the initial way to go but multilateralism will come in later but it might be rationed. I just hope we do things the right way.

4 Likes

As mentioned already in this thread by many, with CoVid being a global problem, multilateralism seems like the most logical approach because it’s now a burden shared by every country; combined efforts should yield better results. And results not just in the development of the vaccine, but in all aspects related to the containment of the virus. Once there is a vaccine it will be several months (maybe years?), until it is avaiable everywhere.
Obviously the political pressure in some places doesn’t allow certain countries to follow multilateralism, but I think that in the end CoVid will be tackled by means of global cooperation

6 Likes

I think this also depends on how much worse the spread of the virus gets before a vaccine is approved and mass produced. If cases climb rapidly and there is a bleak outlook for a countries economy then there will likely be more of a drive on the side of nationalism as they seek to protect themselves first and foremost.

However if countries have the spread of the virus under control without too much of an impact on the economy then less so. In that case they would prioritise emergency and healthcare workers, possibly people who are more at risk.

But ultimately in the long run there should be a more multilateral approach as it is important to deal with the virus around the globe. Though I can imagine hotspots in poorer countries remaining for some time with richer countries imposing travel restrictions rather than dealing with the issue directly.

5 Likes

Lately I was asking myself why we are so unable to cooperate on global scale even when a threat to the whole humanity knoks on our doors.

Obviously multilateralism would be the better choice, by putting aside national interests and allowing the best minds and solutions across the globe to come togheter and solve this situaton.

For suremwe are going to miss this chance again… :laughing:

5 Likes

Hi, it is in the depths of our neural systems: xenophobia is an evolutionary adaptation to our past, where we were living in 100 - 200 (max) communities. If communities were indiscriminately open to newcomers, any food resource that they had in the area that they inhabit would dwindle, possibly below support for reproductive capabilities of the tribe.

5 Likes

I think vaccine can stop the spread covid 19 if every country accept to administer the vaccine

5 Likes

Welcome to Pynk community @solodebest2016.

3 Likes

Welcome to the Pynk community @solodebest2016! We are growing and very glad you joined us. Read some of the many interesting topics in this forum and share your thoughts . Come back often as there are new discussions all the time…

3 Likes

Welcome to Pynk Community Forum @solodebest2016 :handshake: We hope you find it useful, educative and at the same time, entertaining. You are more than welcome to search the entire forum and share your thoughts with community members here. Feel free to ask for help or you can even introduce yourself to the rest of community members so we can get to know you better!!! :+1:

5 Likes

I totally agree solodebest2016. (welcome here, by the way!). I believe all countries will use vaccine, the problem will be cost of vaccines itself, cost of vaccination, and overcoming fears that some of their citizen may have about side effects of vaccines.

6 Likes

Welcome @solodebest2016

3 Likes

COVID-19 vaccine should be distributed to all nations being affected by the virus regardless of whoever the first to discover the most effective and workable medical solutions against this highly contagious illness but ofcourse, they should prioritize the initial allocation to their people before they distribute the antidote massively to other countries.

5 Likes

As the Oxford trials resume after briefly halting whilst a review was carried out due to a patient becoming sick, it makes me consider what the pros and cons are in rushing through a vaccine. What level of ‘collateral damage’ is acceptable here? there is a potentially serious risk of unknown side effects with this vaccine, especially when multiplied by the millions of people who will no doubt be clamouring to get a successful vaccine.

For once I sort of find myself empathising with anti-vaxxers, although I think personally I’d be prepared to expose myself to a little risk to prevent the risk to my family and others. I can definitely understand why there may be those unwilling to accept that risk. History has shown us the dangers of improperly tested drugs (see the Thalidomide Scandal for the most notable example I can think of)

What are you guys thoughts on the risk vs potential benefits here?

5 Likes